M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Bal Chand, learned counsel for the respondents. This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order Dt. 26-09-2014 in I.A. No. 215 of 2013 in R.C. No. 277 of 2008 of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

2. Petitioner herein is the tenant of the respondent in respect of a non-residential premises/shop bearing No. 4-2-577/1, Badichowdi, Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad.

3. The respondents, who are mother and daughter, filed R.C. No. 277 of 2008 on 18-08-2008 before the I Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of (i) wilful default in payment of rents from June 2008 to August 2008, (ii) alleged unauthorized subletting of a portion of the R.C. schedule premises by erecting a kiosk, (iii) Creating nuisance, (iv) bona fide personal need and requirement of the respondents, (v) the petitioner has secured alternative accommodation and (vi) 1st respondent being a widow.

4. The petitioner filed a counter opposing the eviction petition contending that the tenancy was created in the year 1999 and claimed that she had paid a sum of Rs.9,60,000/- as Pagidi and advance deposit to 1st respondent. She further contended that a rental agreement was executed by the respondents in 1999, that its original was in the custody of respondents and that only a photo copy was handed over to her.

5. She filed I.A. No. 215 of 2013 under Section 65 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of the rental agreement Dt. 10-08-1999 and a receipt Dt. 10-08-1999 allegedly issued by the respondents for a sum of Rs. 9,60,000/-. Photocopies of these two documents were filed along with this application.

6. In the affidavit in support of this application, it was stated that the original rental agreement Dt. 10-08-1999 recorded that a sum of Rs.9,60,000/- was paid in cash as an interest free deposit on the specific request of the respondents and that it had to be refunded by the respondents to the petitioner at the time of vacating the leased premises. She alleged that the said amount was paid in cash which was acknowledged by a receipt executed by the respondents but the original receipt given to her was lost on account of shifting of her residence in April 2013. She further contended that when 1st respondent was cross-examined as P.W. 1 on 31-01-2011, she categorically admitted her signature on the photo copy of the rental agreement, but since objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, the photo copy was not marked by the Court. She further contended that she got issued notice under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to the counsel for the respondents to produce the original rental agreement Dt. 10-08-1999, but the same was not complied with by the respondents and a reply was given by the respondents through their counsel though admitting that at the inspection (sic. inception) of the tenancy, the petitioner had got drafted a rental agreement and also obtained the respondents' signature on the same, the original of it was with the petitioner and was not with the respondents. In the reply notice, it was also stated that the respondents were unaware whether the said rental agreement is Dt. 10-08-1999 or not. She therefore contended that once the execution and signatures are admitted, there cannot be any hurdle to mark the photo copy of the above documents which are not within the custody and control of the petitioner.

7. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondents opposing this application and reiterating the stand taken in the reply notice issued by them stating that although at the time of inception of the tenancy, the husband of the petitioner got drafted rental agreement and obtained signatures of the respondents, the original of the said rental agreement was in the custody of the