THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2205, 2207, 2220, 2230, 2279, 2276, 2218, 2561, 2277, 2278, 2291, 2292, 2525, 2228, 2219, 2175, 2184, 2229 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The respondent in these revisions is common. It filed eviction petitions against the petitioners herein before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) pleading the ground of bona fide requirement. The petitioners filed counter-affidavits opposing the respective eviction petitions. The trial of the eviction petitions commenced. The evidence on behalf of the respondent was closed and it is stated that the evidence on behalf of the petitioners is in progress. At that stage, two interlocutory applications were filed in each eviction petition. One is to reopen the evidence and the other to recall P.W.1. The purpose was stated to be that the petitioners came to know about certain facts, which have bearing upon the subject matter of the eviction petitions, and it became necessary to reopen the evidence and recall P.W.1 to bring those facts on record. Through common order, dated 22.04.2010, passed in the pair of interlocutory applications, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the same. Hence, these revisions. Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in the recent past, the petitioners came to know about certain correspondence and the proceedings that emanated from the A.P. Housing Board, which in turn, has leased the property to the respondent. He contends that the very right of the respondent to continue in possession of the premises is shaky and that the said facts need to be brought on record. He further contends that the learned Rent Controller has taken hyper- technical view of the matter. Smt.Manjari S.Ganu, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the interlocutory applications were filed only with a view to protract the proceedings and that the affidavit filed in support of the respective applications is silent as to the purpose for which the evidence is sought to be reopened. The eviction petitions were filed way back in the year 2006. The respondent is an institution. The eviction of the petitioners is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement. The Rules framed under the Act mandate that it is only a summary of evidence and not a full-fledged trial, that is contemplated in the proceedings. The evidence on behalf of the respondent is complete. Even where the evidence in regular suit is to be reopened and a witness is to be recalled, the purpose must be clearly stated in the affidavit. In the instant case, the affidavits are silent, if not, vague as to the purpose for which the evidence is to be reopened. The learned Rent Controller has also observed that in case the petitioners intend to plead those facts, they can do so in further evidence. Hence, the civil revision petitions are disposed of, upholding the orders under revisions, but directing that it shall be open to the petitioners to state the relevant facts in their evidence, to be adduced in the respective cases. There shall be no order as to costs . ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.08.2010 Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl