MOHAMMED ALEEMUDDIN Vs. ANNEY VISHWANATH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the petitioner in R.C.No.391 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, filed under Section 10 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act) for eviction of the respondent/tenant.

(2.) After the evidence of the petitioner in deciding the contentious issues/points for determination, on behalf of respondent, RW.1 was examined on 19 & 21.12.2017. The relevant portion in the cross examination dated 21.12.2017 continuation of RW.1 i.e., RC.No.391 of 2009 respondent Sunil Kumar Anney for the purpose of revision covered by the part of the deposition of the witness during cross examination, which is in fact the observation of the Court of the happening before it in that course is that: The learned counsel for the petitioner confronted the signature on the Xerox copy of the letter dated 20.05.2009 and posed a question whether, he can identify the signature on the bottom of the said letter (Xerox copy), then the witness answered he identified the signature to be the same of his father, the witness further adds that, this letter does not belong to him. Re- examination nill.

(3.) The above observation of the Court of the happening before it during cross-examination of RW.1shows when a Xerox copy of a letter containing a signature on the bottom with the duly filled contents, when signature is confronted witness answered of he identified the signature to be the same of his father. The trial Court did not exhibit that signature even the learned counsel for RW.1-respondent did not choose to seek any further examination by re-examination of the witness for any clarification, might be for the reason the witness added of this letter does not belong to him.