THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6165 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed R.C.C.No.1 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur against the respondent for eviction from the petition schedule property. It was pleaded that the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner and that the former committed default in payment of rents. The respondent filed a counter opposing the R.C.C. He denied the title of the petitioner as well as the relationship of landlord and tenant. The trial of the R.C.C. commenced and the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.641 of 2009 with a prayer to reopen the evidence to enable him to file a letter, which is to the effect that his wife, by name Silar Bee @ Noorjahan got divorce by mutual consent from her former husband. The application was opposed by the respondent. Through its order, dated 16.11.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has already adduced the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. After closure of evidence on the side of the petitioner, the respondent examined R.Ws. 1 and 2 and closed his evidence. The purpose for which the petitioner filed I.A.No.641 of 2009 for reopening the evidence is to introduce the factum of the alleged divorce between Noorjahan and her former husband. The very basis for filing the R.C.C. was that late Noorjahan was the kept-mistress of the petitioner. The question as to whether the petitioner has succeeded to the property is a different aspect. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon Hiba, evidenced by a document, dated 10.07.2003. The question as to whether Noorjahan was married to another person and whether she divorced, hardly becomes relevant for the purpose of the R.C.C. The petitioner has to prove his ownership of the property, independent of the legal status of the said lady. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.01.2010 kdl