HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2866 OF 2009 DATE:10-06-2011 BETWEEN Srikakulapu Lakshmi Narasimha Rao And others …Petitioners AND Atchuta Ramanadham and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2866 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiffs to revise the orders of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, dated 2.1.2009 passed in I.A.No.787 of 2007 in O.S.No.256 of 2006, whereby the petition filed by the plaintiffs seeking a direction to the respondents to deposit the monthly rents at the rate of Rs.5,500/- apart from the arrears right from October, 2003 till the date of filing of the suit has been dismissed. The petitioners-plaintiffs are claiming to be the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.P.9- registered partition deed, dated 16.10.1999. Whereas, the respondents-defendants denied the ownership of the petitioners over the demised premises by way of reply notice-Ex.P.5 contending that the agreed rent is Rs.1,050/- which they are regularly paying to the legal representatives of real owner and that they are prepared to deposit the admitted rents of Rs.1,050/-. The lower Court dismissed the impugned I.A. on the ground that there is a serious controversy with regard to the jural relationship between the parties and that the rent as claimed by the petitioners is Rs.5,500/- and as claimed by the respondents is Rs.1,050/- and that unless the jural relationship between the parties is established, a direction for deposit of the rents cannot be granted. Prima facie the petitioners have not established the relationship between them and the respondents as that of the landlords and tenants and that there is a serious dispute as to the agreed rent. Merely on the basing of the partition deed, the petitioners cannot claim their rights over the premises as well as rents. Further, the petitioners 6 to 8 have filed I.A.No.263 of 2009 to implead them as legal representatives of 4th plaintiff. Meanwhile, first plaintiff died and I.A.No.1183 of 2010 was filed to implead his legal representative as 12th plaintiff. Further second plaintiff also died and I.A.No.488 of 2011 was filed to implead his legal heirs as plaintiffs 13 and 14 and all those applications are pending consideration. In such a situation, no direction can be issued for deposit of rents as claimed by the petitioners. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JUNE 10, 2011 Tsr.