The main legal point established in the judgment is that documentary evidence not produced at the first hearing of the case cannot be received at a subsequent stage unless good cause is shown, emphasizing the importance of timely submission of relevant documents.

ORDER :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. These two Revision Petitions arise between the same parties under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Smt. Noor Jehan Begum, who is 6th respondent in both the revisions, filed R.C. No. 178 of 2006 before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, through her son and alleged GPA Holder Khaja Arshad Moin, against petitioners herein for their eviction under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(v), Section 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) and 10(c) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') from the premises bearing Municipal No. 6-1-1063/1/3, Saifabad, Hyderabad. She alleged that the petitioners herein were inducted as tenants of the said premises in 1981 by her vendor Sri Sultan Mehmood Mohiuddin; that petitioners have committed willful default in non-payment of property tax and rents; that the lease of the premises was given to run a medical hall and general stores business but the petitioners changed the use it by starting photo copying business; that her son was running hotel business at R.T.C. Cross Road in a rented premises, but his landlord asked him to vacate and the said premises and so the RC schedule premises was suitable to carry on such business and is bonafidely required for the said purpose.

3. The 6th respondent along with her son Khaja Arshad Moin also filed R.C. No. 179 of 2006 seeking eviction of the petitioners from another premises bearing Municipal No. 6-1-1063/1/4, Saifabad, Hyderabad on similar grounds under the same statutory provisions.

4. After the trial concluded and the matter was posted for arguments, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in both the Revisions, who are legal heirs of the 6th respondent's son Khaja Arshad Moin, filed I.A. No. 180 of 2018 in R.C. No. 178 of 2006 and I.A. No. 183 of 2018 in R.C. No. 179 of 2006 invoking Rule 7(5) of the Rules framed under the Act, to receive certified copy of GPA dated 16-03-2006 allegedly executed by 6th respondent appointing Khaja Arshad Moin, as her agent.

5. In the said application, they contended that 6th respondent had filed both the eviction petitions through her son Khaja Arshad Moin, that she had executed GPA on 16-03-2006 in favour of her son; and basing on the same, the eviction petitions were being prosecuted by him; that the counsel appearing for them had cross examined 6th respondent on the GPA; that the eviction petitions were posted for submitting arguments of the respondent No. 6 and counsel had also submitted arguments in part, but it came to be known during submissions that the original GPA was not marked and the record indicated that only photo copy of the GPA was filed. It was further contended that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had applied for certified copy of GPA since the original was filed in R.A. No. 89 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad, that the said document is crucial document for adjudication in the case and so the Court should receive it in the interest of justice.

6. Counter affidavit was filed by the petitioners opposing the said applications. They contended that allegations made therein are incorrect and false and this is an attempt made by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to fill up lacuna in the case; that matter was coming up for final arguments and the learned counsel for respondents had argued the matter exhaustively at length; and at this stage, the said applications were not maintainable. They also pointed out that 6th respondent, who was the petitioner in the eviction petitions, had already been examined and she stated specifically in unequivocal terms that she never cross executed any GPA in favour of her son Khaja Arshad Moin and in the light of the said statement, the eviction petitions themselves have to be dismissed. They also contended that the Khaja Arshad Moin, the GPA holder, was not alive and even otherwise, the alleged GPA now sought to be produced is forged and a