IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH (18TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY, JSEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.4313 and 4314 of 2008 Between: E.Shravan Kumar & another … Petitioners/D.1 & D.2 And: E. Ravikumar & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.4313 and 4314 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 18.06.2008 in IA Nos.2215 and 2216 of 2007 in OS No.308 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said applications filed by the first respondent herein-plaintiff, seeking direction to the petitioners-defendants and tenants to deposit rents into Court, was allowed, directing the petitioners herein to deposit Rs.5,53,533/- and respondents 2 to 8-tenants to deposit the rents into Court, till the disposal of the suit. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed suit for rendition of the accounts, directing the defendants to furnish the true and correct accounts in respect of the total cost of the construction of item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and also for payment of Rs.5,93,533/- being 1/3rd share of rents collected by the defendants 1 and 2 from the said building and for payment Rs.7,833.33 p.m. from June 2007 being 1/3rd share of the plaintiff out of the rent of Rs.23,500/- per month received by defendants 1 and 2 and final decree for partition of the property into three equal shares and for delivery of one such share. The petitioners/defendants filed written statement, contesting the suit. The present applications are filed by the plaintiff seeking direction to deposit 1/3rd share of the rents, arrears and current rent pertaining to the plaintiff’s share in to Court, alleging that the defendants who are in occupation of the portion of the building and have let out the other portion to various tenants and collecting rents from them, are not accounting for the same. The petitioners filed counter, opposing the applications. By impugned common order, the trial Court directed the petitioners-defendants 1 and 2, to deposit the amount of Rs.55,535/- and also directing the tenants to deposit the rents into Court regularly. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions are filed. 4. This Court, while admitting the revision on 03.02.2009 passed the following interim order in CRP MP No.5733 of 2008 in CRP No.4314 of 2008 and CRP MP No.5732 of 2008 in CRP No.4313 of 2008: “Heard the learned counsel. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in CRP MP No.5732 of 2008 in CRP No.4313 of 2008, the interim stay had been granted by imposing certain conditions. It is also stated that because of the ill health of Sri G.S.Prakash Rao, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners in CRP No.4313 of 2008, the conditional order was not complied with. The mistakes made in the order relating to the mentioning of the CRP also had been pointed out. Sri G.Dhananjai, the learned counsel representing the respondents would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same order can be further clarified giving some reasonable time. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to make the following order:- “There shall be interim stay on condition of the petitioners depositing 50% of Rs.5,53,533/- and continue to pay 1/3rd of the actual rent received on or before 15th of every month by enclosing a copy of the actual rents received from the respective tenants. If any taxes are paid, petitioners are entitled to deduct 1/3rd of the tax paid by them by enclosing the receipt. This 50% of the amount in Rs.5,53,533/- to be deposited within a period of six weeks, in default, the interim stay shall stand vacated automatically. Further, it is clarified that the deposit of 1/3rd of the actual rent received to be paid before 15th of every month from the respective tenants also to be complied without committing any default and in the event of default, interim stay shall stand vacated automatically in both the CRPs. The said deposit of 1/3rd of the actual rent and continues to deposit the same to be made from the month of February 2009. It is also made clear that such deposits to be made by furnishing the list of the tenants and the rents received.” 5. It is not disputed that the plaintiff is having 1/3rd share in the property. It is also not disputed that the petitioners-D.1 and D.2 are in occupation of the property and they have let out the other portions to various tenants and collecting the rents from them. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the rents so collected. There is however a dispute regarding the quantum of rents. The petitioners/D.1 & D.2 would contend that the rent paid is less than what is being received. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are collecting more than Rs.26,000/- per month towards rents and the defendants are disputing the same. The question as to what exactly is the rent received is a matter to be considered at the time of trial. The above interim order directs the petitioners to deposit the rents as directed therein by furnishing list of tenants and rents received. The above interim order would safeguard the interest of both the parties adequately pending disposal of the suit. 6. It is stated that the interim order is being complied with by the petitioners/D.1 & D.2. Learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would however submit that the petitioners have not been furnishing any statement of account, as to how much rent is collected from which tenant, but are depositing only small amounts, less than what is actually collected by the petitioners. In the circumstances, while making the above interim order absolute and reiterating the directions contained therein, the petitioners/ D.1 and D.2 are further directed to file into the trial Court the statement of account duly showing the names of the tenants and the amounts collected from each of them ever since filing of the suit and also rents being presently collected and continue to make the deposit as directed in the above interim order. 7. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 18.11.2011 Note: Issue CC in one week (BO) bss