THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6163 of 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, 20.06.2006, passed by the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.799 of 2005 in O.S.No.4825 of 2005, whereunder and whereby the petitioner herein-defendant, was directed to deposit the rent for the petition schedule premises at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month for the period from December, 2004 to June, 2005 and to continue to deposit the rent at the said rate from July, 2005 till the disposal of the suit, but, the respondent herein-plaintiff was not permitted to withdraw the said amount. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff, in the said suit. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner- defendant contended that there is no jural relationship of tenant and landlord between the defendant and the plaintiff, therefore, the question of depositing the rent for the petition schedule premises by the defendant does not arise. He further contended that by virtue of an agreement of sale, father of the defendant purchased the petition schedule property and was also put in possession of the same and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. The averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the said interlocutory application, would go to show that the plaintiff is the owner of the property and he filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the petition schedule premises. When the defendant committed willful default in payment of rents, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant and filed the present application seeking direction to the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent and for future damages from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession. 6. The defendant filed a detailed counter before the trial Court inter alia stating that there is no jural relationship of tenant and landlord between him and the plaintiff and as such, the question of payment of rent to the plaintiff for the petition schedule premises does not arise. 7. Unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the impugned order of the present nature. 8. Whether there is tenant and landlord relationship existing between the defendant and the plaintiff has got to be decided after conclusion of the trial in the suit. 9. Similarly, whether the defendant was put into possession of schedule premises under an agreement of sale and that he is not liable to pay rents have to be decided in the suit. 10. To protect the interests of both parties, some arrangement has to be made with regard to payment of rent into Court. The trial Court by virtue of impugned order directed the defendant to deposit the rents into Court. This will safeguard the interests of plaintiff. Similarly, by ordering the plaintiff not to withdraw the amount will safeguard the interests of defendant. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. The suit is of the year 2006 and the same can be disposed of expeditiously. Till then, to safeguard the interest of both the parties, the impugned order can be continued. If ultimately, the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, he can as well withdraw the amount deposited by the defendant towards the rent of the suit schedule premises. 13. With the above observations and directions, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 22nd March 2010 dr