The admissibility of evidence and the necessity of raising objections at the earliest opportunity.

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order and decreetal order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 225 of 2016 which was filed against the order of the Rent Controller dated 04.02.2016 in M.P. No. 512 of 2015 in R.C.O.P. No. 1990 of 2011 on the file of the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The issues involved in all the civil revision petitions are common and the learned Appellate Authority has passed common order in R.C.A. Nos. 225 to 231 of 2016 against M.P. Nos. 512, 522, 520, 524, 523, 525 and 521 of 2015 in R.C.O.P. Nos. 1990, 1994, 1992, 1997, 1995, 1998 and 1993 of 2011.

3. The respondent is the landlord and petitioners are the tenants. The respondent/landlord has filed the above R.C.O.Ps. for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of requirement of petitions premises for own occupation for her sons, who are carrying on business in a rental premises.

4. All the petitioners filed counter affidavits and opposed the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the R.C.O.Ps. The respondent filed proof affidavit and mentioned the documents to be marked in the proof affidavit. The petitioners filed memo stating that the respondent is trying to mark the documents, which are not mentioned in the proof affidavit. An order was passed in the memo filed by the petitioners, against which, the petitioners filed C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2216 to 2229 of 2015 before this Court.

5. This Court directed the respondent to file additional proof affidavit and mark the documents mentioned in the additional proof affidavit. As per the orders of this Court, the respondent filed additional proof affidavit and marked documents viz., Exs.P17 to P31.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners cross examined P.W.1. The respondent closed her side evidence. The petitioners filed the present M.P.Nos.512, 520 to 525 of 2015 to issue subpoena to the parties mentioned in Exs.P17 to P24. According to the petitioners, the said documents are not genuine documents and the petitioners are entitled to let in rebuttable evidence. The petitioners further stated that Exs.P17 to P24 are created documents for the purpose of present case. So the petitioners are entitled to disprove the genuineness of the documents and therefore, it is necessary to issue subpoena to the parties concerned.

7. The respondent filed counter affidavits in all the miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioners/tenants, denying the averments mentioned in the petitions and submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to seek issuance of subpoena to third parties. The petitioners did not object to marking of the documents and cross examination of P.W.1 in respect of the documents. The petitioners have filed the said petitions, when the petitions are posted for evidence on their behalf and thus, prayed for dismissal of the miscellaneous petitions.

8. The learned Rent Controller considering the averments mentioned in the affidavit, counter affidavit, materials available on record and arguments advanced by the counsel appearing for the parties, dismissed the petitions holding that the petitioners did not object to mark the documents, also elaborately cross examined the P.W.1 and documents were marked as per the order of this Court made in C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2216 to 2229 of 2015, against which, the petitioners filed R.C.A.Nos.225 to 231 of 2016.

9. The learned Appellate Authority considering all the materials independently, order of the learned Rent Controller and the judgments relied upon by the parties, dismissed the said R.C.As. holding that the bonafide requirement of the respondent/landlord must be decided based on the circumstances prevailing at the time of filing of the petitions for eviction and that the petitioners have not made any case to issue subpoena to third parties, against which, the present civil revision petitions are preferred.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent d