1. These two Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they both involve a decision on the nature of the document obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in civil proceedings.

2. The revision petitioner is the 5th respondent in E.P. No. 1 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judges Court, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. The 1st respondent in the revision petition filed an Election Petition challenging the election of the 5th respondent, who was a successful candidate for the post of Member of Mandal Praja Parishad Territorial Constituency of Gavarampeta Territorial Constituency, Jiyyammavalasa Mandal Praja Parishad in the elections held in the year 2014. The 1st respondent herein, as the petitioner in the said Election Petition wanted to mark the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as exhibits for which the petitioner herein raised an objection on the ground that the said documents are neither certified copies nor originals. The Tribunal overruled the objection raised by the petitioner herein and allowed the marking of documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the custodian of the documents on the ground that the petitioner herein is not disputing the correctness of those entries and the documents can be permitted to be marked as a single exhibit, by order dated 16-06-2015. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition are the landlords in R.C. No. 305 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad who filed a petition under Section 4 (1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent in respect of a shop admeasuring 240 sft. of super built-up area bearing Door No. 22-5-73/2, situated at Balaji Market, Charkaman, Hyderabad. The respondent-tenant filed certain documents obtained under the Right to Information Act and an objection was taken by the petitioner herein that those documents cannot be marked. The Rent Controller overruled the objection by order dated 19-06-2015 and observed that those documents obtained under the Right to Information Act are admissible as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Evidence Act, 1872 so long as the Court has no reason to doubt that the said certified copies are not faithful and accurate reproduction of the original documents in custody of Government Departments.

4. Thus, in both cases, the nature of the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and their admissibility was in issue. In both cases, the learned counsel for the objectors relied on a decision of this Court in K. Bhaskar Rao vs. K.A. Rama Rao, 2010 (5) ALD 339 and submitted that the xerox copies of the documents which are certified as true copies under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be equated with certified copies mentioned in the Evidence Act.

5. In the light of the above issue, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the respective cases.

6. The Right to Information Act was enacted in the year 2005 and came into force with effect from 15-06-2005. It provides for designation of a Public Information Officer for obtaining information with exemptions from such disclosure and the grounds for rejection in appropriate cases. Section 22 of the Act says that the provisions of the said Act shall have overriding effect on the provisions of other enactments including Official Secrets Act, which are not inconsistent.

7. Chapter-V of the Evidence Act, 1872 deals with documentary evidence. Section 61 says that the contents of the documents may be proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence. The primary evidence is stated to be the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court under Section 62 of the Act. Secondary evidence is defined under Section 63 of the Act. As per Section 64 of the Act, normally, the documents must be prov