THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.193 and 194 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Since these two Civil Revision Petitions arise between the same parties in respect of same proceedings, they are being taken up together for disposal. The petitioner in these two cases is the landlord. He initially filed R.C.No.69 of 2001 before the learned I-Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against the respondent seeking eviction on the ground of willful default. The same was contested by the respondent. In the said case, both parties let in their evidence. Upon hearing both sides and perusing the evidence thereof, the learned Rent Controller holding that there is no jural relationship between the parties and therefore, the question of committing any default by the respondent does not arise, dismissed the R.C. As against the same, the petitioner filed R.A.No.290 of 2002. Pending the same, he also filed I.A.No.912 of 2004 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to receive additional evidence. The Court below did not find favour with the R.A. as well as I.A. and it accordingly dismissed the same. Hence, these two Civil Revision Petitions. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record, it is seen that admittedly, so far as the question of title is concerned, except bare evidence of the petitioner, there is no document or material produced on his behalf in support of the title. In the appeal, aforesaid I.A. has been filed by the petitioner for additional evidence, but there is no pleading in the R.C. in that regard. Further, the petitioner neither filed I.A. seeking amendment in the eviction petition nor laid appropriate foundation. In view of the fact that the alleged additional documents are not supported by appropriate pleadings or evidence on record nor relevant to the title of the petitioner, the lower appellate Court has rightly rejected the I.A. Consequently, dismissal of the appeal also cannot be found fault with. Hence, I do not find any merit in both the Civil Revision Petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, ACJ 18th NOVEMBER, 2010. kvni