THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4266 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner/defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order dated 15.09.2011 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing I.A.No.1141 of 2011 in O.S.No.1430 of 2009 filed under Order XVI Rule 14 C.P.C to summon the mother of the plaintiff to examine her as a witness. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the above suit for eviction of the petitioner/defendant-firm from the plaint schedule property stating that he is the owner of the plaint schedule property; that he leased out the said property to the defendant for carrying on business on monthly rent of Rs.2,125/- and the present monthly rent is Rs.11,600/- and that the tenancy was terminated by issuing a notice, and therefore, sought for eviction. The defendant-firm contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein at para 7 it was pleaded that it took the said premises on lease for 30 years about 22 years ago at the rate of Rs.2,125/- per month subject to enhancement @ 20% on completion of every three years of tenancy from the landlady Smt.P.Durga Susheelamma; that it had paid advance of Rs.2,125/- towards rent apart from Rs.1,50,000/- towards goodwill, which shall be refunded at the time of termination of lease and that the landlady is aged and unable to look after the property and as such she informed them that the plaintiff will collect the rent and it obliged the same. After closure of the evidence, the matter is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the present I.A has been filed to summon the mother of the petitioner to prove that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. When the parties went into trial on the issues framed including as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant-firm from the suit schedule property, it is for the defendant to establish that the plaintiff is not the owner of the schedule property and that it has not obtained the lease from the plaintiff. Further, once the defendant-firm took a plea that it took the schedule premises on lease for 30 years on a monthly rent of Rs.2,125/- subject to condition of enhancement @20% on completion of every three years and payment of advance of Rs.1,50,000/-, it is for the defendant to establish about the obtaining of lease. Though the partner of the defendant-firm examined himself as D.W.1 and admitted in his evidence that he paid the rents to the plaintiff and also received receipts in the name of the plaintiff, he failed to file any documentary evidence to show that Durga Susheelamma, from whom he obtained the lease, is the owner of the property, whereas the plaintiff, who examined himself as P.W.1, who is none other than son of the witness sought to be summoned, filed documents to show that he is the owner of the property. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the lower Court in dismissing the Interlocutory Application does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 20.10.2011 va