HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P. No. 857 of 2007 DATED: 18.02.2011 Between: 1. B. Suseela Bhai (died) 2. K.G.Kiranmai .. Petitioners And Smt.P.Sudha Rani .. Respondent O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 07.02.2007 passed in I.A.No.650 of 2006 in O.S.No.762 of 2004 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby the petition filed by the 1st petitioner-plaintiff under Section 151 CPC read with Section 11 of the A.P. Rent Control Act, was dismissed. During pendency of the suit, the original petitioner died and her legal representative was brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in I.A. No. 650 of 2006. The petitioner-Suseela Bai is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S. No. 762 of 2004 for eviction of the respondent-defendant from the suit schedule premises and payment of arrears of rent. She also filed an application in I.A. No. 650 of 2006 in O.S. No. 762 of 2004 seeking a direction to the respondent-Sudha Rani, who is the defendant, to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.16,500/- per month up-to-date including arrears from 01.11.2001 at the rate of Rs.16,500/- p.m. totaling Rs.8,58,000/- before this Court failing which, prevent the defendant from contesting the suit. The petitioner stated that the agreed rent between the parties is Rs.16,500/- p.m., but the defendant failed to pay it. Then, she issued a notice for eviction of the defendant from the schedule premises and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. It is stated that even after the notice was issued, the defendant failed to deposit the rents, but filed a suit in O.S.No.918 of 2003 against the petitioner and her son-in-law and obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.370 of 2003, however on contest, the petition was dismissed by order dated 24.07.2003. Against the order of dismissal, the defendant filed C.M.A. No. 27 of 2003, which was also dismissed on 30.12.2003. It is stated that in the order dated 24.07.2003, the Court clearly held that the rent payable by the defendant is Rs.16,500/- p.m., but she is not depositing the rent, and therefore, she cannot contest O.S.No.762 of 2004 filed by the petitioner. It is stated that in fact, the defendant is not having any other property except a house site, and therefore, the house property was attached before judgment in I.A. No. 911 of 2004, and in spite of that the defendant sold away the property on 23.04.2005 for a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- and now she does not have any property and is residing as a tenant in the petitioner’s house. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition seeking appropriate directions to the respondent. The respondent filed counter affidavit before the trial Court stating that she filed a suit for injunction in O.S. No. 918 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and she has been regularly paying monthly rents at Rs.6,500/- p.m. as per the terms of the lease between the parties and the original lease deed, which was executed at the time of her occupation of the premises, is available with the petitioner. It is stated that the written statement filed in the above suit shall be read as part and parcel and the admitted rent is only Rs.6,500/- p.m. but not Rs.16,500/-. The trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 650 of 2006 in O.S.No. 762 of 2004 by the impugned order dated 07.02.2007 observing that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, and there is a dispute in the suit with regard to the quantum of rent, period of lease, etc. which are to be decided in the main suit and not at this stage. It is further held that the contention of the petitioner plaintiff that the defendant is not depositing the admitted rents is incorrect and the petitioner failed to prove how Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable to her case, as such, this provision has no application. It is also held that the petitioner, instead of getting ready for the trial in the main suit, filed the present application in the year 2006 at a belated stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated 24.07.2003 passed in I.A.No. 370 of 2003 in O.S.No. 918 of 2003, which was filed by the defendant, it was held that the quantum of rent payable by the defendant was determined at Rs.16,500/- p.m. as per Ex.R1-declaration submitted by the defendant herself to the petitioner-plaintiff. It is further submitted that the respondent is a tenant in the premises of the petitioner from 19.08.1990 onwards and the rent was enhanced from time to time and in the suit for injunction filed by the defendant, the Court decided the quantum of rent payable as Rs.16,500/- p.m. and the defendant has not taken any steps for determination of the actual rent payable by him. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that merely because the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, by an order dated 24.07.2003, held that the rent payable is Rs.16,500/- p.m., it cannot be said that the defendant admitted the quantum of rent, and in fact, the rent payable is Rs.6,500/- , this figure was subsequently manipulated. It is also contended that the plaintiff would have taken steps to send Ex.R1 to the hand-writing expert for examination. It is also contended that the respondent filed I.A. No. 370 of 2003 seeking to grant temporary injunction, and therefore, the only question involved in the application was whether the respondent-defendant was entitled to injunction or not, but the trial Court erred in deciding the issue with regard to the quantum of rent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the schedule premises and the respondent is the tenant. There is no controversy with regard to the determination of the rent payable at the rate of Rs.16,500/- p.m. as was decided in I.A. No. 370 of 2003 in O.S. No. 918 of 2003 which was filed by the defendant herself before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam which was also upheld by the lower appellate Court in C.M.A. No. 27 of 2003 filed by the defendant before IV Additional District Judge, Viskhapatnam. In a suit for injunction, the issue relating to payment of rent was specifically determined after taking into consideration the relevant documents. As per Ex.R1 – declaration made by the defendant, the monthly rent payable is Rs.16,500/- p.m. and the respondent’s contention that Rs.6,500/- p.m. was altered and manipulated was negatived. When the landlady produced the declaration filed by the defendant showing that the monthly rent payable is at the rate of Rs.16,500/- p.m., it is for the defendant to dispute the declaration and the insertion of figure “1” before “6” as alleged by her. The defendant only contended that the plaintiff would have taken steps to send Ex.R1 to the hand-writing expert for examination. In respect of this contention, this Court is of the opinion that whoever disputes any document, the burden of proof of such document by getting it examined by the hand-writing expert, lies on that particular person, but the defendant has not taken any steps to get Ex.R1 examined with regard to the so-called insertion of figure “1” before the letter “6”. Inasmuch as the defendant has neither initiated any proceedings disputing the findings in order to determine the actual rent payable by him nor initiated any legal action, the findings of the trial Court have become final. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that though the present application was filed under wrong provision, both the counsel have fairly admitted that under Order XV-A C.P.C., which came into effect on 03.10.1981, in a suit for recovery of possession or termination of the lease with or without prayer for arrears of rent, the defendant, while filing the written statement shall deposit the undisputed arrears calculated up to date into the Court and continue to deposit the same. If any application is filed by the plaintiff directing any deposit of rent by the defendant and the defendant pleads that there are arrears of rent, the Court shall pass an order by giving an opportunity to both the parties with regard to the actual undisputed amount payable, and pass an order directing the defendant to pay the amount within the stipulated time. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated time and if the defendant commits default in payment of the rent, then the Court shall strike off the defence. The only question that arises for consideration in the revision petition is as to whether the rent payable by the defendant is Rs.16,500/- p.m. or Rs.6,500/- p.m.. Having carefully analysed the material placed on record, I am of the opinion that the controversy no more continues in view of the order dated 24.07.2003 in I.A. No. 370 of 2003 in O.S. No. 918 of 2003 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizag, wherein it is categorically held that as per Ex.R1, there are no material alterations or any kind of tampering of digits of Rs.16,500/- p.m. which are mentioned in the contents of Ex.R1, and the contention of the respondent herein that there was tampering of Ex.R1-declaration and insertion of figure “1” was rejected. It is also held that the admission of the execution of Ex.R1 by the defendant coupled with the contents of Ex.R1 prima facie shows that Rs.16,500/- p.m. is the rent payable from the month of January, 2000. No other legal action has been initiated by the defendant controverting the quantum of rent or for deciding the actual rent payable by her. Hence, in view of the aforesaid finding, it cannot be said that still there is a dispute with regard to the payment of monthly rent. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has erroneously rejected I.A.No.650 of 2006 in O.S.No.762 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for depositing the arrears of rents payable from 01.11.2001, merely based on the grounds that wrong provision was invoked, and the petition in I.A. No. 650 of 2006 was field at a belated stage. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order 07.02.2007 passed in I.A.No.650 of 2006 in O.S.No.762 of 2004 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. I.A. No. 650 of 2006 stands allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.16,500/- per month from 01.11.2001 till date after deducting the amounts already deposited either in O.S. No. 918 of 2003 or in O.S.No.762 of 2004 by the end of March, 2011 and continue to deposit the rents payable from the month of March, 2011 onwards by 10th of every succeeding month. No order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 18th February, 2011 bcj