IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 363 OF 2009 Between : Anil Kumar Behl ...Petitioner A N D Smt Noorunissa Begum …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 363 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 15.12.2008, in I.A. No.1972 of 2008 in O.S. No.581 of 2007, on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the revision petitioner /respondent, is directed to deposit the arrears of rent into trial court on or before 31-12-2008 and shall continue to deposit the rent every month on or before 10th of the succeeding month. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present civil revision petition are as follows: The respondent herein filed the application against petitioner / respondent to deposit arrears of rent till the disposal of the suit from January, 2007. Petitioner / respondent filed counter stating that he obtained the property on lease from Mohd. Omer Hussain, who is the son of respondent / plaintiff and paying rent to him regularly by way of account payee cheque and that at no point of time, he paid rent to the respondent / plaintiff 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in pursuance of written agreement of lease between the petitioner and the son of the respondent herein, the petitioner has been paying rents by way of cheque to the son of the respondent herein, and that order of the trial court to deposit the arrears of rent into court on or before 31.12.2008, in respect of the same premises is illegal and hence, he prays to modify the order. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that there are disputes between the petitioner and the son of respondent, that as per the respondent, as she has got title over the property; the notice has been issued to the petitioner to pay the rents to her, the same has not been complied with and therefore, he prays to dismiss the civil revision petition. 5. As seen from the record, at this stage the written lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the son of the respondent herein for a period of 11 months. Therefore, there is no lease deed executed between the petitioner and the respondent herein. In those circumstances, the petitioner can be called as a tenant holding over. In pursuance of the agreement, the petitioner is paying rents to the son of the respondent. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been paying rents to the son of the respondent by way of cheque, the direction to deposit arrears of rents is unwarranted. Whereas, the other condition to deposit the rent every month on or before 10th of the succeeding month in the court does not warrant any interference. Therefore, the order of the trial court is set aside and order to deposit the rent every month is confirmed. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Since, the suit is of the year 2007, and the rights of the parties are involved, the trial court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, subject to part heard and old cases. No costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU. J February 26, 2010. YVL/PN