IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THIS THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3485, 3489, 3490 and 3496 of 2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3485 of 2010 Between Syed Majeeduddin …PETITIONER(S) A N D Smt. Kuldeep Kaur …RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3489 of 2010 Between Pavan Kumar Gupta …PETITIONER(S) A N D Smt. Kuldeep Kaur …RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3490 of 2010 Between Pavan Kumar Gupta …PETITIONER(S) A N D Smt. Kuldeep Kaur …RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3496 of 2010 Between Syed Majeeduddin …PETITIONER(S) A N D Smt. Kuldeep Kaur …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3485, 3489, 3490 and 3496 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These four revisions arise under identical circumstances. The petitioners are tenants of the respective respondents. Suits were filed by the respondents for eviction of the petitioners and the trial of the same is in progress. The cross-examination of P.W.1 was completed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. with a prayer to recall P.W.1 and to permit them to cross-examine. The purpose mentioned in the affidavits filed in support of the applications is that the petitioners came to know that the respondent had secured the possession of certain premises and accordingly, the averment made under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short – ‘the Act’), is untenable. It was also mentioned that the premises after eviction are going to be used for establishment of wine shop and finance business and there exist places of religion around it. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners intend to recall P.W.1 to cross-examine the witness on certain aspects. In an application of that nature, the purpose for which the witness is to be recalled is required to be mentioned. In the instant case, the petitioners did mention the purpose of recalling P.W.1. According to them, the respondent has come into possession of certain premises and the reason mentioned in the notice under Section 106 of the Act ceases to exist. The plea taken by the petitioners would at the most fit into the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. In a suit for eviction based on a notice issued under Section 106 of the Act, it hardly makes any difference, whether or not, the lessor is possessed of any properties or he is not in bona fide requirement of the premises. So is the case with the default of rent, if any. The trial Court has taken into account the same and disposed of the applications. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 6th August 2010 CVRK