THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2281 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 30.04.2009, in I.A.No.1198 of 2008 in O.S.No.268 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the petitioner/defendant was directed to deposit arrears of rents @ Rs.30,000/- from May, 2004 till 15.02.2008 and thereafter and in future, at the same rate towards damages for use and occupation till the disposal of the suit, that the respondent was further directed to deposit sum of Rs.30,000/- to the credit of the suit every month in future towards damages for use and occupation, till the disposal of the suit and also directed to deposit the rents and damages for use and occupation up to 21.11.2008 within a month. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent/plaintiff has omitted to claim the rents in the earlier suit O.S.No.38 of 2004 on the file of V Additional District Judge’s Court (FTC), Ranga Reddy District, which was filed by the respondent against the petitioner/defendant; that Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) bars the respondent from claiming the arrears of rent; that according to the petitioner the rent payable is Rs.15,000/- per month towards the premises and Rs.15,000/- per month towards hospital equipment; that there were no arrears to be paid by the petitioner and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that a categorical finding has been recorded by the trial Court in the earlier suit to the effect that the monthly rent payable to the premises is Rs.30,000/- per month; that the same rent is being ordered to be paid for damages for use and occupation of the suit schedule property without enhancing the same; that Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. has no application to the present case and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 4. The tenancy between the petitioner and respondent is not in dispute. The respondent/plaintiff is the purchaser of the suit schedule property. The vendor of the respondent let out the said property in favour of the revision petitioner/defendant for a period of five years, commencing from 15.11.2000. In the earlier suit O.S.No.38 of 2004, between the same parties, a categorical finding has been recorded to the effect that the monthly rent payable by the petitioner in respect of the suit schedule premises is Rs.30,000/- per month. After expiry of the tenancy, the tenant is liable to vacate the premises. If he continues in the premises as a tenant holding over, the landlord is entitled for damages for use and occupation. The damages for use and occupation have to be enhanced over and above admitted rent payable to the premises in question. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rent payable to the premises in question is only Rs.15,000/- per month and another amount of Rs.15,000/- per month is paid towards hospital equipment; that the petitioner requested the respondent to take away the hospital equipment; and that in such a case, the petitioner is liable to pay the rent only to the premises but not for the hospital equipment. But a finding has been recorded in O.S.No.38 of 2004, between the same parties, to the effect that the rent payable by the petitioner is Rs.30,000/- per month for the premises in question. No distinction has been drawn by the competent civil Court, which has passed the decree, with regard to the payment of rent at Rs.15,000/- per month towards premises and another amount of Rs.15,000/- towards hospital equipment. Therefore, as seen from the finding of the competent Court in the earlier suit, the rent payable by the petitioner is Rs.30,000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay the arrears of rent to the premises in question at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month and at the same rate towards damages for use and occupation. 6. With regard to applicability of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C., by the time the earlier suit is filed, the respondent restricted the claim only to damages for use and occupation till the date of filing of that suit. By the date of filing of the earlier suit, there is no cause of action for the respondent herein to claim future rents. Therefore, Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. has no application to the present facts of the case. Hence, the impugned order does not require any modification in view of the fact that a finding has been recorded by the competent Court in the earlier suit with regard to the rent payable by the petitioner i.e., Rs.30,000/- per month for the premises in question. 7. With regard to the withdrawal of the amount deposited by the petitioner, the question of permitting the respondent to withdraw Rs.15,000/- per month without furnishing any security and the remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- per month by furnishing security, does not arise in view of the fact that a finding has been recorded by the competent Court to the effect that the rent payable by the petitioner is Rs.30,000/- per month for the premises in question. Therefore, it is made clear that on such deposit made by the petitioner, the respondent is entitled to withdraw the arrears of rent or the damages for use and occupation without furnishing any security. Hence, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Any observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition. No observation can be construed as a finding of this Court. Uninfluenced by the observation, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible subject to part heard and other old cases. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 25, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2281 OF 2009 Between: M/s. Sai Sanjeevani Hospital .....PETITIONER AND Sri Pranav Ravi ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2281 OF 2009 October 25, 2010