AHONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:982 OF 2010 Dated: 11.3.2010 Between: M. Namdev ..Petitioner And R. Suhasini .. Respondent This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:982 OF 2010 ORDER: Feeling aggrieved by order dated 19.12.2009 in I.A.No.459 of 2009 in R.C.No.166 of 2007 passed by the learned I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. Originally, the landlord filed the above RC seeking eviction of the tenant. The tenant filed the above application under Rule 7(5) of the Rent Control Act for receiving the documents viz., a notarized agreement of sale dated 14.5.1984, receipt issued by M.C.H., dated 13.4.1987, Application form dated 18.4.1987, Deposit certificate dated 13.4.1993, receipt dated 13.4.1993 with acknowledgement, receipt dated 9-4-1987 issued by one V.H. Union, application for society Membership dated 9-4-1987, Sanction plan dated 16.4.1987 and electricity bills. Except the agreement of sale dated 14.5.1984, all the other documents were received by the Court below subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility, on the ground that the agreement of sale is undervalued, insufficiently stamped, and it requires registration. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Court below, the tenant has filed the present revision. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the order impugned goes to show that the agreement of sale is a notarized document. Further, under the said document, the vendor had delivered possession of the schedule property. In such circumstances, I feel that the Court below is justified in passing the order under revision. Insofar as receipt of other documents is concerned, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order under revision. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not warrant any interference by this Court and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 11th March, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:982 OF 2010 11.03.2010