THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 1579 of 2010 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 04.03.2010, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, partly allowing the application in I.A. No. 2374 of 2009 in O.S. No. 629 of 2009, filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking to direct the petitioner-defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- per month w.e.f. 11.03.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff being one for recovery of possession and damages, the Court below committed an error in partly allowing the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the C.P.C.’) and ordering the petitioner-defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- per month for the period eleven months from 01.05.2009 to 01.03.2010 amounting to Rs.14,52,000/- and continue to deposit an amount of Rs.1,32,000/- per month till the disposal of the suit. He submitted that unless the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is decreed as prayed for, and the plea of the respondent-plaintiff being that he has never let out the suit schedule property to the petitioner- defendant, and his case being that the petitioner-defendant, is mere squatter, no relief as claimed by the respondent-plaintiff could have been granted, much less in an application filed under Section 151 C.P.C., and more so when there is no provision in law to pass such an order. According to him, even for passing a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C., there should be a categorical admission by the defendant, without which the Court cannot pass any decree. At any rate, he submitted that in a suit for eviction and recovery of possession by the landlord against the tenant, the Court cannot determine the quantum of rent and direct the same to be deposited, particularly when the claim made by the respondent-plaintiff are at a higher rate. He thus prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff submitted that the petitioner-defendant forcefully entered into possession of the suit schedule property, and therefore, he has filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from him. He submitted that the petitioner-defendant after forcefully entering into the suit schedule property, filed suit in O.S. No. 528 of 2009 on the file of VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking injunction against the respondent-plaintiff and obtained order of status quo in I.A. No. 332 of 2009 stating that he had entered into possession of the suit schedule property as lessees, having taken lease from the parents of the respondent-plaintiff under an oral agreement on a monthly rent of Rs.1,32,000/- @ Rs.30/- per square feet. That he had paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the parents of the respondent-plaintiff as token advance through cheque, and that he is liable to pay the rent from 01.05.2009. He further submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner-defendant have themselves admitted that he is in possession of the property as lessees of the respondent-plaintiff, the Court below to do justice to the parties, has passed the order under revision, and the same being an equitable order, does not call for interference by this Court in revision, and prayed that the C.R.P. be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and perused the order under revision. The power conferred on the Courts under Section 151 C.P.C. is inherent and discretionary. Nothing can limit or affect the inherent power of the Courts to meet the ends of justice and that is why, the Courts recognized the inherent power since it is not possible to foresee all possible circumstances that may arise not to provide for appropriate procedure to meet all those situations. Though the petitioner-defendant contends that considering the nature of the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the Court below, could not have passed the order of the nature impugned in the writ petition in an application filed under Section 151 C.P.C., to consider the justifiability or otherwise of the impugned order, it is appropriate to notice the respective stands taken by the petitioner-defendant and the respondent-plaintiff. As can be seen from the pleadings of the petitioner-defendant, he does not dispute that the respondent-plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. The petitioner-defendant, in fact, in the suit O.S. No. 528 of 2009 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, filed against the petitioner-plaintiff, admitted that he came into possession of the suit schedule property as a tenant, having taken the suit schedule property on lease under oral agreement from the parents of the respondent-defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,32,000/- and that he had paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as token advance and that he is due and liable to pay the rent from 01.05.2009. There is no doubt, that the monthly rent claimed by the respondent-plaintiff at Rs.1,98,000/- @ Rs.45/- per square yard, and arrears of rent at that rate, is higher than what the petitioner-defendant admitted as rent payable by him to the respondent-plaintiff. Though the rent admitted to be payable by the petitioner-defendant is less than what the respondent-plaintiff had claimed, but considering the admitted stand taken by the petitioner-defendant that he is the tenant of the respondent-plaintiff, and that he took the suit schedule property on monthly rent of Rs.1,32,000/- and that he was due and payable the arrears of rent from 01.05.2009, the Court below instead of going into the controversy as to whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to the rent as claimed by him, to meet the ends of justice and to ensure that the petitioner-defendant-tenant does not enjoy the property without paying anything to the respondent-plaintiff-landlord, thereby putting the respondent-plaintiff-landlord to sufferance, felt it appropriate to direct the petitioner-defendant to pay the rents admitted by him, pending disposal of the suit, and accordingly in exercise its inherent power under Section 151 C.P.C. by reason of the impugned order, directed the petitioner-defendant to pay the rents as mentioned therein, and I find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith, and more so when the same is an equitable order, passed to meet the ends of justice. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit itself expeditiously. After pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be granted some time to pay the arrears of rent. Conceding the request, the petitioner is granted two months time to pay the arrears of rent and shall continue to pay the admitted rent till the disposal of the suit. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: June, 2010 KSR