IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1200 of 2010 Between: Aleti Narasinga Rao ..... PETITIONER (S) AND Kota Naga Subba Rao and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1200 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 29.04.2009 passed in I.A.No.224 of 2008 in O.S.No.214 of 2007 by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 to 5 were directed to deposit arrears of rent. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record. There is a serious contention as to the lease agreement relied upon by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. The trial Court in para-16 of the impugned order extracted the recitals of a lease agreement. From a perusal thereof, it appears that the period of lease is ten years on various rents commencing from Rs.16,000/- per month, for various periods. The said lease agreement is dated 08.11.2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity inasmuch as there was no lease deed as such and in fact no such document was marked in the proceedings before the trial Court. It is further contended that the trial Court ought not to have indicated the recitals of any document when such a document is not marked as an exhibit in the proceedings before it. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that though a copy of the lease agreement dated 08.11.2001 was not marked as an exhibit, the same was filed along with the material papers in the proceedings before the trial Court and, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. As can be seen from the appendix of evidence in the impugned order, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on either side. But the trial Court has relied on a lease agreement dated 08.11.2001 purported to have been executed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein for passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced another copy of the lease agreement stating that the same was considered in O.S.No.511 of 2006 before the trial Court and from that copy it is found that there is no mention of period of lease and the rent is noted as Rs.2,000/- per month. In view of these controversial aspects, it is desirable that the matter may be remitted back to the trial Court for disposal afresh. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 29.04.2009 passed in I.A.No.224 of 2008 in O.S.No.214 of 2007 by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, for disposal afresh on merits, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court and after giving opportunity to both sides to produce the documents on which they rely upon, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of four weeks from today. In the meanwhile the petitioner shall continue to deposit Rs.8,000/- per month towards rent. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 20th August 2010 CVRK Note: Office to issue copy by 23.08.2010. B/o CVRK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1200 of 2010 20th August 2010 CVRK