IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2110 OF 2010 Between : Naresh Kumar Agarwal .... PETITIONER AND Smt Papudi Bai and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2110 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 19.04.2010, in I.A.No.215 of 2010 in R.C.No.117 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Rent Controller – Cum - XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the learned Principal Rent Controller – cum - XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, dismissed the application filed by the respondents in R.C.No.117 of 2007, to reopen the case for further evidence. 2. The petitioner is respondent No.2 in R.C.No.117 of 2007. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein are the petitioners in the said R.C. They filed the R.C. for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rents, apart from other grounds. The petitioner herein who is allegedly the tenant of the premises resisted the eviction petition. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of the respective contentions. When the R.C. was reserved for orders on 28.04.2010, the tenant who is the petitioner herein filed three applications, one being I.A.No.215 of 2010, to reopen the matter for further evidence, another one being I.A.No.216 of 2010 to recall RW-2 and I.A.No.217 of 2010 to receive the documents as additional evidence. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.215 of 2010, it is stated that the rents were received through money orders till August, 2006 at the address 21-1-758, Patel Market, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad, and whereas the subsequent money orders sent to the same address were returned and therefore, to substantiate their case that the landlords wantonly refused the money order, money order receipts before October, 2006 are required to be admitted. For better appreciation I may refer to the affidavit filed in support of the petition, which reads as hereunder: “The respondents herein have filed the above R.C. on the ground of alleged non-payment of property tax and rents. I have already examined myself as RW-1 and my brother Mr.Nand Kishore, was examined as RW-2. The respondents/petitioners filed the above case for allege willful default from October, 2006. We have filed our detailed counter explaining true and correct facts about the alleged default. In fact, in our counter we have given the details about the money order sent for the alleged default period. For the first time at the time of arguments, respondents/petitioners have taken a stand that the Money Orders for the allegedly default period were sent to the wrong address. It is pertinent to note that admittedly, the rents were received through Money Orders till August, 2006 at address i.e., 21-1-758, Patel Market, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad (alleged wrong address) and whereas the subsequent money orders sent to the same address were returned. To substantiate the case of the petitioners/respondents, now petitioners are filing the Money Order receipts before October, 2006 which are admittedly received by the respondents/petitioners. This clearly shows the malafides on the part of the respondents/petitioners while returning the Money Orders which are sent after October, 2006. It is, therefore, prayed that the above documents may be received and for the marking of the same RW-2 may be recalled by reopening the evidence of petitioners/respondents, as prayed for. If the petitioners are not allowed and opportunity is not given, the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any manner. Necessity to file these documents has arisen in the peculiar circumstances explained in view of attempt on the part of respondents/petitioners to develop their case differently by raising a different plea in their arguments”. 4. The landlords, who are respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, filed counter resisting the three applications. It is stated in the counter that the documents already marked before the court as Exs.X-5 to X- 31 do not contain the door number of the addressee therein and the legal notice under Ex.X-4 was sent to the address at 21-1-755. Further RW-2 in his cross-examination made categorical statement that they sent money orders to Door No.21-1-755 and in the next sentence he denied the suggestion that they never sent money orders to the address at 21-1-755 and that the present applications have been filed to drag on the proceedings and to cover up latches in their evidence. 5. The learned Principal Rent Controller, on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the material brought on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein has moved the application to fill up the lacunas in their evidence and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application by order, dated 19.04.2010. Hence this revision. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to mark only two money order receipts and nothing more and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in case the R.C. is reopened for further evidence on behalf of petitioner herein. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords submits that permitting the petitioners at this stage to adduce further evidence amounts to facilitating him to fill up the lacunas in the evidence. 9. I have gone through the evidence of PW-1. He has not stated that he sent money order receipts prior to October, 2006, to one and the same address. Be that as it may, the petitioner being in possession of money order receipts has not explained for not filing the same in the Court, when the petitioner examined the witnesses on his behalf. Since the petitioner has not given proper explanation for not filing the documents and not adverting the documents through the witnesses examined on his behalf, I am of the view that the order passed by the Principal Rent Controller – Cum - XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, does not warrant any interference. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J MAY 20, 2010. YVL/MD