The revision petitioner is the petitioner in R.C.No.391 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, filed under Section 10 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act) for eviction of the respondent/tenant.

2. After the evidence of the petitioner in deciding the contentious issues/points for determination, on behalf of respondent, RW.1 was examined on 19 & 21.12.2017. The relevant portion in the cross examination dated 21.12.2017 continuation of RW.1 i.e., RC.No.391 of 2009 respondent Sunil Kumar Anney for the purpose of revision covered by the part of the deposition of the witness during cross examination, which is in fact the observation of the Court of the happening before it in that course is that: The learned counsel for the petitioner confronted the signature on the Xerox copy of the letter dated 20.05.2009 and posed a question whether, he can identify the signature on the bottom of the said letter (Xerox copy), then the witness answered he identified the signature to be the same of his father, the witness further adds that, this letter does not belong to him. Re- examination nill.

3. The above observation of the Court of the happening before it during cross-examination of RW.1 supra shows when a Xerox copy of a letter containing a signature on the bottom with the duly filled contents, when signature is confronted witness answered of he identified the signature to be the same of his father. The trial Court did not exhibit that signature even the learned counsel for RW.1-respondent did not choose to seek any further examination by re-examination of the witness for any clarification, might be for the reason the witness added of this letter does not belong to him.

4. Here two questions arisen in the revision to answer. One is in such case a document petition is required to be filed as contemplated by Rule 7 Clause (5) of the Rules framed under the Act 1960.

“7. (1) Every application under the Act shall in addition to the particulars necessary to support it contain also the particulars prescribed in Rule 3 so far as they may be applicable and every application for eviction under Section 10 shall also state the grounds on which the application is made accompanied by the agreement of tenancy, if any, rent receipt and a copy of the notice issued to the tenant.

(2)……….

(3)……….

(4) The parties or their counsel shall produce, at the first hearing of the case, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed, and all documents which the Controller has ordered to be produced, and the Controller shall receive the documents so produced.

(5) No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been, but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of sub-rule (4) shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Controller for the non-production thereof; and the Controller receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing.

(6) The Controller may at any stage of the case reject any document which he considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection.

(7) (i) Subject to the provisions of clause (ii), there shall be endorsed on every document which has been admitted in evidence in the case the following particulars, namely:

(a) the number and title of the case.

(b) the name of the person producing the document.

(c) the date on which it was produced; and

(d) a statement of its having been so admitted; and the endorsement shall be signed or initialled by the Controller.

(ii) Where a document so admitted is an entry in a book, account or record, and a copy thereof has been substituted for the original under sub-rule (8), the particulars aforesaid shall be endorsed on the copy and the endorsement thereon shall be signed or initialled by the