THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 3211 of 2007 Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 10.01.2007 passed in I.A. No.247 of 2005 in O.S. No.87 of 2003. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 87 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the third defendant in the said suit. The first respondent has filed I.A. No.247 of 2005 in O.S. No. 87 of 2003 seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to pay the rent fixed by the Court, failing which to evict them from the suit schedule land. The lower Court, by an order dated 27.09.2006, directed the petitioners herein to deposit Rs.2,500/- per annum. Subsequently, the first respondent herein filed review application in I.A. No.1346 of 2006 for enhancement of the rental amount and for eviction of the petitioners herein from the suit schedule land. The lower Court, by impugned orders, fixed the amount at Rs.12,492/- per annum and directed the petitioners herein to deposit the same towards the rental charges or damages for use and occupation of the suit schedule property by them. It is also observed that if they fail to comply with the said order, they will not be entitled to contest the suit. Challenging the said order, the present CRP is filed. The main contention of the petitioners herein is that the first respondent herein earlier filed a suit in O.S. No. 780 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Narsapur, for perpetual injunction, which was subsequently transferred and renumbered as O.S. No.144 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palakol, and that after contest the said suit was dismissed against the petitioners, and aggrieved by the same the first respondent herein carried the matter in appeal in A.S. No.54 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Court, Narsapur and the said appeal was also dismissed and subsequently the matter was carried in second appeal in S.A. No. 588 of 1999 and the same is pending on the file of this Court. It is also their submission that the Court below has not considered the counters filed by the petitioners herein while fixing the amount of Rs.12,492/- per annum. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable or not. It appears that the lower Court, after taking into consideration the averments made in I.A. No.220 of 2005, wherein the petitioners themselves seems to have contended that the makta is at Rs.12,492/- per annum, has fixed the amount at Rs.12,492/- per annum towards either rental or damages for use and occupation of the suit schedule property. Though it appears that the petitioners themselves had mentioned the makta at Rs.12,492/- per annum, but the fact remains that in I.A. No.247 of 2005 neither the petitioners nor the respondent had specified the amount of makta or the charges for use and occupation of the property. It is not clear whether the averments in IA No.220 of 2005 were taken into consideration while passing the order in IA No.247 of 2005. Having regard to the uncertainty with regard to agricultural income, which ultimately depend upon untimely rains, floods and natural calamities and price paid to the purchasers a reasonable and pragmatic approach has to be taken. Though the lower Court appears to be justified in fixing the amount as per the averments made by the petitioners themselves in IA No.220 of 2005 but since that was not the claim of the petitioners in IA 247 of 2005 at the earlier point of time I consider it just and reasonable to fix the amount at Rs.8000/- per annum. Accordingly, the impugned order stands modified and the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. The petitioners are directed to deposit the arrears by the end of April 2011 and by the end of April every year till the suit is finally disposed of. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 18.11.2010 Nsr