IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3975 of 2011 Between: M/s Regal Photo Arts Sutidio, Hyderabad … Petitioner And: Vikas Kumar Agarwal … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3975 of 2011 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.08.2011 in IA No.209 of 2011 in RC No.297 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed under Order 16, Rules 6 and 7 read with section 151 CPC for summoning the records i.e., income tax returns for the assessment years 2007- 08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and disclosures of the respondent, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed petition for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirement. The petitioner herein filed counter opposing the same, inter-alia contending that the respondent does not require the premises and he is having several other premises where he has been doing business. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner made an application under section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act 2005 to the Income Tax Authorities seeking information about the returns filed by the respondent for the above said assessment years. It is stated that the Income Tax Authorities gave a reply rejecting the application on the ground that the Department addressed a letter to the respondent and in reply, the respondent raised objection against revealing the information. Thereafter, the petitioner filed IA No.209 of 2011 by issuing summons to the Income Tax Authorities for production of the above said documents. The respondent filed counter, opposing the same. The learned Rent Controller by impugned order dismissed the application observing that the petition is filed only to drag on the matter. The impugned order does not show whether or not the documents are relevant or necessary. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the income tax returns together with their disclosures would reveal that the respondent is having several other premises where he is doing business and earning income there from. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the income tax department did not disclose the particulars of the returns. In the counter filed by the respondent in the revision petition, it is stated that the information sought for by the petitioner may relate to several persons with the same name of the respondent and the same does not pertain to the respondent. 5. It may be that several persons bear the same name, but the reply received by the petitioner from the Income Tax Department, would show that the address particulars mentioned therein as House No.21-7-872, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad is tallying with the address of the respondent herein. The respondent cannot therefore contend that the said reply dated 11.07.2011 given by the department does not relate to him. 6. Be that as it may, the production of the income tax returns pertaining to the above assessment years would disclose whether the respondent is having any other business premises or not. If they do not disclose that the respondent is having any other business premises as contended by the respondent, the same would strengthen his contention. The respondent does not therefore suffer any prejudice if the said documents are summoned. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order, dismissing the application for summoning the income tax returns submitted by the respondent for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009- 10, is set aside and consequently, IA No.209 of 2011 stands allowed. The documents would however be received subject to proof and relevancy. 8. Having regard to the fact that the rent control case is of the year 2009 and in view of the apprehension expressed by the respondent that the petitioner may trig to drag on the matter, the learned Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the said application at an early date, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.12.2011 bss