HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2079 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the orders of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, in I.A.No.138 of 2010 in R.C.C.No.104 of 2007, dated 18.3.2010. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed the above R.C.C. for eviction of the tenant. In that matter, the tenant filed the above application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC for issuance of witness summons to the Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Vijayawada to depute any authorized person to file income tax return papers for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 pertaining to Mandakini restaurant and Bar bearing permanent Account No.AAJFM 7825J, on the ground that as per the returns submitted, the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, is barred and he was permitted earlier to mark the attested copies filed by him. The Court below dismissed the above application by the order impugned herein. Hence, the present revision has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is obvious that the petitioner-tenant has not mentioned either in his counter or in additional counter that as per the income tax returns, the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is barred. But, however, he filed the above application seeking to summon the Commissioner, Income Tax Department, for the purpose of filing the original returns on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is barred. If the tenant wants to mark the attested copies of the income tax returns, it is open for him to produce the Chartered Accountant, who attested the returns and get marked the same and for the said purpose, an official need not be summoned. Further, it is noticed that subsequent to the order impugned herein, the tenant filed the income tax returns and the same were marked as Exs.B30 and B31. In view of the same, I feel that no orders are necessary in this revision. However, it is always open for the respondent-landlord to cross-examine R.W.1 on the said returns in order to elicit necessary information. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date: 21st January, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2079 OF 2010 21.1.2011