THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4282 of 2011 Date:31st October, 2011 Between: Prithviraj Singh @ Deepu Singh ..... Petitioner AND 1.Rajesh Singh S/o.Raja Singh & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4282 of 2011 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 01.08.2011, passed in R.A.No.97 No.97 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order, dated 17.02.2003, passed in R.C.No.476 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondents 1 and 2 are the landlords. The landlords filed R.C.No.476 of 2001 seeking eviction of the tenant, who is the petitioner herein. The case has chequered career. Twice the parties have approached this Court and the latest order passed by this Court is in C.R.P.No.4267 of 2009. The said CRP came to be allowed on 30.06.2010, remanding the Rent Control Appeal being R.A.No.97 of 2003 for fresh disposal. The relevant portion of the order, dated 30.06.2010, passed in CRP No.4267 of 2009, reads as hereunder: “It is true that this Court by an order dated 01.12.2008, passed in CRP No.3463 of 2006 remanded the matter for the purpose of proving the documents filed by the petitioners and admittedly the petitioners did not adduce any evidence to prove those documents. Since those documents were referred as Exs.P13 and P14 in the order of this Court, the lower appellate authority seems to be under the impression that those documents were marked by this Court and went on discussing about those documents. A careful reading of the record reveals that the first respondent is the tenant of the premises. Even according to the first respondent he along with the second respondent have taken the premises on lease from Laxman Singh in 1995 on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. It appears that the first respondent in his evidence admitted that Laxman Singh is the grand son of Manohar Singh and Manohar Singh is the husband of Rama Bai who sold the properties to the petitioners. It also appears that the property has been mutated in the name of the petitioners as per Ex.P10 proceedings. Since I am intending to remand the matter, I am not inclined to discuss about the merits of the case. However, in all fairness I must state that the petitioners were not diligent when an opportunity was given by this Court. They ought to have examined themselves by recalling PW.1 or by examining Rama Bai and prove the sale deeds which they wanted to prove before this Court. Admittedly, the first respondent herein has not been paying rent to anybody. It appears that technicalities should not come in the way of doing ultimate justice. In the circumstances, since it appears that the appellate authority had discussed the documents though they are not proved by examining any of the witnesses concerning those documents, the order of the appellate authority has to be set aside. Accordingly, the CRP is allowed and the impugned order in RA No.97 of 2003 is set aside. The matter is again remanded to the lower appellate court i.e., the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, with a direction to give fair opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and to decide whether the denial of title of the petitioners by the first respondent is bona fide and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is represented that the first respondent has been depositing rents in the Rent Appellate Court. If that is so, the first respondent shall continue to deposit the rents without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties.” On remand, the landlords examined T.Sukhraj Singh as PW.2 and marked Exs.P13 to P16 and whereas, the tenant got himself further examined and marked Exs.R.7 to R.10. The Appellate Authority i.e., the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the order, dated 17.02.2003, passed in RC No.476 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 3. When the revision came up for admission, the respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant sought time to vacate the premises. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/landlords, on consultation with his clients, reports no objection for some time being allowed to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances, the petitioner/tenant is allowed six months time from today to vacate the premises subject to the following conditions: a) He shall file an affidavit before the Rent Controller within a week that he would vacate the premises on or before expiry of six months from today. b) He shall pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. within four weeks. c) He shall continue to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. till he vacates the premises. Failing compliance of any of the above conditions, the respondents/landlords are at liberty to execute the order, dated 17.02.3003, passed in R.C.No.476 of 2001. The amounts already deposited by the petitioner/tenant are to be given due credit to the amount, which he is required to deposit at the rate of Rs.500/- p.m. pursuant to this order. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:31st October, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. within two days. B/O cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4282 of 2011 Date:31st October, 2011