IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2700 and 2830 of 2010 BETWEEN M/s. Raghavendra Automobiles. ... PETITIONER AND E. Krishna Reddy. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. THAKUR SINGH Counsel for the Respondent: MR. P.N. MURTHY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are by the tenant against the dismissal of his applications being I.A.Nos.1293 and 1294 of 2009 dated 09.04.2010 wherein he seeks to call for originally marked documents viz. three ponotes and a receipt marked on his behalf in his suit for recovery of amount. He also seeks to send the disputed receipt for examination by expert. Both the said applications were rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the disputed documents were sent for comparison by expert and report in favour of the tenant is already received, which is the subject matter of his suit for recovery of amount. These revisions arise out of landlord’s suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits. 2. Heard both sides. 3. As desired by me, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the plaint copies in the suit filed by the landlord in O.S.No.2653 of 2005 and the plaint in O.S.No.875 of 2005 by the tenant. Learned counsel has also produced the issues, which are framed for consideration in both the suits, which are mentioned as under: O.S.No.2653 of 2005 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession of suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the arrears of rent and mesne profits as prayed for? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rents during the pendency of suit till the date of final decision of the suit? 4. To what relief? O.S.No.2653 of 2005 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.5,53,000/- as prayed for? 2. To what relief? 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court in VELAGA SIVARAMA KRISHNA v. VELAGA VEERABHADRA RAO[1] in support of his contention that the disputed document is required to be sent for comparison by expert, especially as the petitioner needs to substantiate his defence so far as issue No.2 in O.S.No.2653 of 2005 is concerned. 5. Para 3 of the plaint in O.S.No.875 of 2005 is relevant and is extracted hereunder: 3. The plaintiff respectfully submit that as the defendant failed to pay hand loan amount received by him, hence, the defendant is liable to pay the interest at 24% p.a. The rent accrued as on the date of notice is Rs.1,21,802/-. After deducting the rent of Rs. 1,21,802/- from the interest i.e. Rs.2,13,000/- payable by the defendant as on 02.12.02 on Rs.1,50,000/- is Rs.91,198/-. The plaintiff is foregoing and not claiming the above said balance interest of Rs.91,198/-. Thus, the plaintiff is claiming a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- along with 2% interest from 2.12.02 when the defendant has acknowledged and renewed the debt of the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is liable and the plaintiff is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards principal and Rs.2,03,000/- towards interest from 2.12.02 to as on date of issuance of notice. Thus, altogether the defendant is due a sum of Rs.5,53,000/- to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 4.6.05 and defendant wantonly and deliberately avoided to receive the same. The plaintiff is herewith filing 1) Receipt dt.2.12.02; 2) legal notice dt.4.6.05; 3) Returned postal cover with acknowledgement for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. Similarly, para 6 of the plaint in O.S.No.2653 of 2005 is relevant and is extracted hereunder: 5. The plaintiff submits that since the tenancy is governed by provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, no reasons need be assigned for termination of tenancy. The condition 12 of the Lease Deed clearly shows about the termination of the agreement. As the defendant failed to handover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property even after the termination of the tenancy, the plaintiff is entitle to evict the defendant and seek delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is entitle to recover the arrears of rent from January 1998 onwards and the defendant is liable to pay from the said month and year. The plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property is located in highly commercial area and the shop under occupation of the defendant would now fetch a minimum rent of Rs.4,000/- for surroundings. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitle claim damages from the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay the damages for use and occupation of the suit schedule property unauthorizedly from January 1998 onwards till the delivery of the vacant possession of the suit schedule shop. Though the defendant is liable to pay rents from January 1998 because of limitation the plaintiff is claiming the rents from June 2003 onwards. The defendant also liable to pay the damages Rs.40,000/- to the plaintiff for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit schedule shop. Hence, the plaintiff has no remedy except approaching the court by filing this suit. 6. The point for consideration, therefore, is whether the order impugned deserves to be interfered with to enable the petitioner/tenant to get an expert opinion with respect to the receipt dated 02.12.2002 and under which, allegedly, the tenant has advanced Rs.2,00,000/- to the landlord. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to clarify the plaint averments in O.S.No.875 of 2005, extracted above, on the basis of the legal notice dated 04.06.2005, which preceeded the suit. He seeks to contend that the adjustment of rent as per the said notice was up to the date of suit. 8. However, the said contention cannot be accepted in preference to the specific averments in the plaint. The petitioner, therefore, cannot seek a decree for recovery of the amount with interest as well as adjustment towards rent. Further, in view of the fact that the very same document is already accompanied by an expert’s opinion in the connected suit, in the present suit the impugned order does not deserve to be interfered with for the additional reasons, as mentioned above. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 3, 2011 DSK [1] 2009 (1) ALT 379