THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 4267 of 2009 Order: This revision is directed against the orders dated 10.07.2009 passed in R.A. No. 97 of 2003 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the orders dated 17.02.2003 passed in R.C. No. 476 of 2001 by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is respondent No.1, Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners and respondent No.3 herein is the second respondent in R.C. No.476 of 2001. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in R.C. No.476 of 2001. The petitioners filed an application under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short ‘the Act’) seeking eviction of the respondents from the petition schedule premises. The second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. Their case is that they are the owners of the schedule premises bearing No.14-8-552, situated at Jumerab Bazaar, Hyderabad, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed in the year 1998 from one Smt. Rama Bai and got mutated their names in the municipal records. The first respondent is the tenant of the said premises and the second respondent is the partner of the first respondent. They are carrying on saw mill business in the premises. There was an oral tenancy between the petitioners and the respondents and monthly rent was fixed at Rs.1,000/-, which is payable on or before 10th day of every succeeding month excluding electricity charges. The first respondent became irregular in payment of rents. The arrears accumulated to a tune of Rs.37,000/- from October 1998 to October 2001. The first respondent had been postponing the rents on one pretext or the other taking advantage of the close relationship between him and the petitioners. The first petitioner and his father approached the first respondent on 16.10.2001 and demanded him to pay the arrears of rent and they further requested the first respondent to vacate the premises. Then the first respondent got enraged and threatened the first petitioner and his father with dire consequences. However, the first respondent had issued a telegram on 17.10.2001 regretting the incident and promised to pay arrears of rent in instalments. However, on 27.10.2001 when the first petitioner approached the first respondent he neither paid the rents nor agreed to vacate the schedule premises. As such, the petitioners, after issuing a legal notice dated 29.10.2001, filed R.C. No. 476 of 2001 seeking eviction of the respondents from the schedule premises. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the title of the petitioners. His specific case is that he along with the second respondent had taken the premises on rent from one Laxman Singh and they executed a rental agreement on 07.07.1995 and that they have been paying agreed monthly rent of Rs.300/- regularly to the said Laxman Singh. Necessary points were framed for consideration. On behalf of the petitioners the first petitioner was examined as PW.1 and one Amar Singh was examined as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the first respondent was examined as RW.1 and one Vikas Singh was examined as RW.2 and Exs.R1 to R6 have been marked. The learned Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, having examined the entire evidence on record, allowed the petition and directed the respondents to hand over the vacant passion of the premises within two months from the date of order i.e., from 17.02.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed an appeal in R.A. No.97 of 2003. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, who is the appellate authority, having found that the petitioners did not examine Rama Bai from whom they claimed to have purchased the property and they did not file the sale deeds, dismissed the appeal. However, as seen from the record the first respondent seems to have admitted in his evidence that after filing of the eviction petition, the said Laxman Singh has not been collecting any rents from him. Thus, it is clear that the first respondent has not been paying any rents since from the date of filing of the eviction petition i.e., from 2001 onwards. Originally, the order passed by the Additional Chief Judge in R.A. No.97 of 2003 was challenged before this Court by the petitioners in RC No.476 of 2001 by filing CRP No. 3463 of 2006. The petitioners also filed CMP No.6185 of 2008 in CRP No.3463 of 2006 praying to receive the sale deed dated 23.01.1998, vide document No.338 of 2000 and another sale deed dated 31.01.1998, vide document No. 214 of 2000 as additional evidence on the ground that those sale deeds were not filed before the Rent Controller. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court allowed the said revision and passed the following orders. “Whether the document is genuine or not has to be decided by the Court when it is duly proved by the parties. In view of the fact that proper explanation has been given by the petitioners in not filing those sale deeds during the trial or in the appellate Court, an opportunity can be given to the petitioners herein to prove those documents in accordance with law. Hence, the impugned judgment is set aside only for the purpose of remanding the matter to the lower appellate Court for proving the sale deeds. Thereafter the lower appellate Court shall pass appropriate orders basing on the evidence available on record as expeditiously as possible.” Unfortunately, after the remand, the petitioners in RC No.476 of 2001 did not adduce any evidence to prove the said sale deeds. Para 12 of the impugned order is as follows. “After remanding the matter this Court has given ample opportunity to the counsel for the petitioners, but the counsel fails to turn up to prove the registered sale deeds.” Thereafter, the appellate Court again re-appreciated the entire evidence and believing Exs.P13 and P14 documents dismissed the appeal filed by the first respondent and confirmed the orders passed by the Principal Rent Controller in R.C. No. 476 of 2001, dated 17.02.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent in RC 476 of 2001 filed the present revision. Sri L. Ravi Chandra, learned counsel representing Sri Milind G. Gokhale, learned counsel for the first respondent i.e., the petitioner herein, vehemently submitted that the lower appellate court has not followed the remand order passed by this court. His main submission is that the remand is only for the purpose of proving the sale deeds and the onus of proving the sale deeds lies on the petitioners in RC No.476 of 2001 and once they failed to discharge their obligation the appellate court has no right to deal with the matter on merits. His main submission is that the Court below ought to have seen that it is functus officio once it has disposed of the earlier rent appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners i.e., respondents 1 and 2 herein submitted that admittedly the first respondent tenant is not paying any rents to anybody and even to Laxman Singh and that Laxman Singh never collected any rents from the first respondent and that the petitioners have filed several documents before the rent controller and those documents clinchingly establish that the petitioners have purchased the property and that even in municipal records their names have been mutated and once their names have been mutated in the municipal records the respondents were not justified in denying the title of the petitioners. It is also his submission that the lower appellate court has considered all the facts and circumstances and has given valid and justified reasons for its findings. It appears that RW.1 seems to have admitted that Laxman Singh is the grand son of Manohar Singh and the wife of Manohar Singh is Rama Bai who sold the property to the petitioners. Admittedly said Laxman Singh has not been collecting the rents. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is true that this Court by an order dated 01.12.2008 passed in CRP No.3463 of 2006 remanded the mater for the purpose of proving the documents filed by the petitioners and admittedly the petitioners did not adduce any evidence to prove those documents. Since those documents were referred as Exs.P13 and P14 in the order of this Court, the lower appellate authority seems to be under the impression that those documents were marked by this Court and went on discussing about those documents. A careful reading of the record reveals that the first respondent is the tenant of the premises. Even according to the first respondent he along with the second respondent have taken the premises on lease from Laxman singh in 1995 on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. It appears that the first respondent in his evidence admitted that Laxman Singh is the grand son of Manohar Singh and Manohar Singh is the husband of Rama Bai who sold the properties to the petitioners. It also appears that the property has been mutated in the name of the petitioners as per Ex.P10 proceedings. Since I am intending to remand the matter, I am not inclined to discuss about the merits of the case. However, in all fairness I must state that the petitioners were not diligent when an opportunity was given by this Court. They ought to have examined themselves by recalling PW.1 or by examining Rama Bai and prove the sale deeds which they wanted to prove before this Court. Admittedly, the first respondent herein has not been paying rent to anybody. It appears that technicalities should not come in the way of doing ultimate justice. In the circumstances, since it appears that the appellate authority had discussed the documents though they are not proved by examining any of the witnesses concerning those documents, the order of the appellate authority has to be set aside. Accordingly, the CRP is allowed and the impugned order in RA No.97 of 2003 is set aside. The matter is again remanded to the lower appellate Court i.e., the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, with a direction to give fair opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and to decide whether the denial of title of the petitioners by the first respondent is bona fide and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is represented that the first respondent has been depositing rents in the Rent Appellate Court. If that is so, the first respondent shall continue to deposit the rents without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 30.06.2010 Nsr