THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.165 of 2010 26.03.2010 Between: Alapati Subbarao ….Petitioner AND Kusumpudi Kishore Kumar …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.165 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.33 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. It is for eviction of respondent from the suit premises. He also filed I.A.No.245 of 2008 under Rule 1 of Order XV-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as amended by A.P.High Court. The Court below allowed the same on 05.01.2009 directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. While doing so, the petitioner’s contention that the suit premises would fetch Rs.8,000/- per month was rejected and the respondent was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed C.R.P.No.1581 of 2009. This Court allowed the same on 22.06.2009 and remanded the matter to the lower Court for fresh disposal. Thereafter, on 29.07.2009, a fresh order was passed directing the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, present civil revision petition is filed. The petitioner relies on rent receipts allegedly signed by respondent whereunder Rs.4,800/- was paid as rent for the months of May, July, August, September, October, November, December of 2006 and January and March, 2007. Counsel for respondent however disputes the same. He has pointed out the reasons to discard these rent receipts. These reasons are to be adverted later. According to counsel for respondent, order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any error and all the factors were taken into consideration. Indisputably Rule 2 of Order XV-A of CPC is attracted to interlocutory application filed by the petitioner as respondent denied default. He also denied the rent of Rs.4,800/- as alleged. The sub rule (2) of Order XV-A of CPC, to the extent necessary, reads as under. (2) Where the defendant pleads in the written statement that no arrears of rent or licence fee exists, it shall be competent for the Court to pass an order in this regard, after affording opportunity to both the parties, and in case any amount is found due, the defendant shall be under obligation to deposit the same, within the time stipulated by the Court and continue to deposit the amount which becomes payable thereafter, as provided under Rule 1. Provided that the time stipulated for payment of amount, as aforesaid, may be extended by the Court for reasons to be recovered for a period not exceeding 15 days. If the defendant commits default in making the deposits, as aforesaid, the Court shall strike off the defence. On such deposit it shall be competent for the plaintiff to withdraw the same. It appears the respondent denied the rent of Rs.4,800/- per month. He asserted that it is Rs.2,000/- per month. He also alleged that after filing the petition, the petitioner collected rent from the respondent but he refused to take rent for the month of March when it was offered in April. The respondent, therefore, sent money through Money Order, which was refused. The respondent then sent it by way of Bank Pay Order for the months of March and April by Registered Post, which was received by petitioner. The respondent marked Exs.R.1 to R.6, petitioner marked Exs.P.1 to P.4, which include Ex.P.3, postal acknowledgement, and Ex.P.4, reply notice. In this factual background, the Court below thought it fit that Rs.2,000/- would be appropriate for the purpose of Order XV-A, Rule 2 of CPC. While allowing the petition to that extent, it is observed in the impugned order. In view of the allegations with regard to payment of adverse and quantum of monthly rent without oral evidence of both sides at this stage it is impossible to decide whether respondent committed default in payment of the alleged arrears of monthly rents from February, 2007 to January, 2008. Therefore, the question whether the respondent committed default in payment of rents for the said period will be decided during the trial of the suit. Accordingly, this point is answered. The background of the case, the rival pleadings before the Court below and the contentions made before this Court do not in any manner support the submission of petitioner’s counsel that the impugned order warrants interference. No doubt, the petitioner exhibited Ex.P.1 (bunch of rent receipts) before this Court. In none of these rent receipts, except one, all receipts are signed by one B.V.V.Nagabhushanam. Even if it is assumed that B.V.V.Nagabhushanam is an agent who signed the rent receipts, nothing prevented the petitioner to examine him. Secondly, the counter signature of respondent is not found on all the receipts and the signature is also denied before this Court. Therefore, unless and until respondent is confronted with these receipts, it cannot probablise that the rent is Rs.4,800/- per month. The Court below considered these aspects in a well considered order and the civil revision petition is misconceived. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed observing that the suit itself may be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, excluding the Court vacation period. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.03.2010 Pln