C O M M O N O R D E R

Since arguments were argued in both the revision petitions, it is only prudent that a common order is passed.

2.C.R.P.No.1048 of 2017 has arisen out of an order dated

02.02.2017 passed in I.A.No.1308 of 2016 in O.S.No.775 of 2006, which suit is now pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Vellore. C.R.P.No.1049 of 2017 had been filed against an order dated dated 02.02.2017 in I.A.No.1309 of 2016 in O.S.No.771of 2006, which suit is also pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Vellore.

3.Both the aforementioned suits in O.S.Nos.771 & 775 of 2006 had been instituted by the same plaintiff, A.Jayapal, who is also the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions herein. O.S.No.771 of 2006 had been filed seeking a direction against the defendant therein / respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.61,670/- stating that the aforesaid amount was arrears of rent payable to the plaintiff / Jayapal and also for the costs of the suit.

4.O.S.No.775 of 2006, had been filed seeking a judgment against the defendant for payment of a sum of Rs.61,670/- again claiming arrears of rent payable to the plaintif. The property, for which the said rent is claimed, is a residential premises at ground floor bearing Old Door No.19/D, New Door No.59/4, Chunnamambukkara Street, Vellore. The same premises is the subject property in both the suits.

5.Both the parties had an occasion to come earlier before this Court by filing two revision petitions in the aforementioned two suits in CRP(PD)Nos.4091 & 4092 of 2014. The defendant in the two suits, Devasigamani was the revision petitioner in the aforementioned two revision petitions. Necessity to file the said two revision petitions arose owing to an order passed in I.A.No.140 of 2014 in O.S.No.771 of 2006 and in I.A.No.141 of 2014 in O.S.No.775 of 2006. I refer to the order in the earlier Civil Revision Petitions because they appear to be quite connected with the issues raised in the present Civil Revision Petitions.

6.I.A.Nos.140 & 141 of 2014 in the two suits had been filed by the defendant, under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking permission to mark xerox copy of the rental agreement dated 28.07.2005 as secondary evidence. It necessitated the learned judge hearing the Civil Revision Petitions to first examine or whether any such agreement in the nature of a rental agreement had actually been entered into. If the original is available and could not be produced, the sufficient reasons should be given for producing the secondary evidence / xerox copy and not the original. The learned Judge, during the hearing of the said revision petitions, examined the provisions under Section 63 of the Evidence Act and conditions which permit marking of secondary evidence and thereafter, had observed as follows:-

“11.The petitioner is seeking to mark xerox copy of the rental agreement dated 28.07.2005 entered between the respondent's father Annamalai Chettiar and petitioner. According to the petitioner, original rental agreement was with Annamalai Chettiar till his death and after his lifetime, the same is with the respondent. The respondent denied the existence of the said rental agreement dated 28.07.2005 and contended that the petitioner has fabricated alleged rental agreement for the purpose of the suits in order to avoid payment of arrears of rent. The respondent contended that the property was settled to his mother on 09.04.1958 for her lifetime and subsequently, to the respondent absolutely. On the date of settlement, respondent's mother took possession of the property and filed R.C.O.P.No.12 of 1997 for eviction of the petitioner from the shop No.19/3 and eviction was ordered. Subsequently, respondent filed R.C.O.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2005 for eviction of the petitioner from the shop Nos.19/D and 19 and obtained an order of eviction and took possession of three shops through Court by way of filing E.P. The respondent has marked the said documents to sub