THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 4942 OF 2010 DATE: 27.1.2011 BETWEEN: Madey Uday Prabhakara Rao petitioner And M/s. Sri Vijaya Sai Photo Lamination and Frame Works respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Mr N Siva Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Mr G Ram Gopal The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 4942 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order dated 15.7.2010 in I.A. No. 59 of 2010 in O.S.No. 1377 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakapatnam. The petitioner herein is plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S. No. 1377 of 2009 seeking eviction of the defendant from the suit property and for recovery of possession and further direction to the defendant to pay Rs.1,20,000/- towards arrears of rent from September 2008 to August, 2009 and also to pay Rs.20,000/- per month rent from September, 2009. The case of the petitioner is that he has leased the subject premises to the defendant for a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- and he is paying the rents. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 15 (A) of CPC to direct the respondent to deposit arrears of rents from September, 2008 to August 2009 at Rs.10,000/- per month and to pay the future rents within the stipulated time fixed by the court, failing which to order eviction by striking out the defence. In the said application, the respondent filed a counter stating that the monthly rent is only Rs.4000/-. Upon hearing the counsel on either side, the Court below by order dated 15.7.2010 directed to deposit the arrears of rent from September, 2008 till July 2010 within one month in the Court at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month and further directed to deposit the future rents at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month before 15th of every succeeding month till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondent is not even paying the admitted rents regularly and the Court below ought to have passed an conditional order to strike off the defence on failure to comply with the order. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent denied the same and submitted that the respondent has deposited the arrears of rent at Rs.4000/- and is paying the monthly rent at Rs.4000/-. However, this Court is not inclined to go into the said issue and if the order of the Court below is not complied with, it is always open for the petitioner to file an application to strike of the defence and it can not be said that in each and every order the Courts should impose any such conditions. Having heard the counsel on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, there is no reason warranting interference of this Court with the order of the Court below directing the respondent to deposit the admitted rents pending disposal of the suit. The revision fails and accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 27.1.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 4942 OF 2010 DATE: 27.1.2011