THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6193 OF 2009 DATED: 03-06- 2010. Between The Hyderabad Stock Exchange Limited, Rep. by its Executive Director. … Petitioner And Dilip Kumar Agrawal …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6193 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 01-06-2009, in I.A.No.3536 of 2008 in O.S.No.182 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. 3. The petitioner herein filed the above application under Order XV-A r/w Section 151 CPC to direct the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.17,82,224/- towards damages and compensation from 11-02-2008 till the date and also a sum of Rs.9,686/- per day which is admitted rent by the respondent during the pendency of the suit. That application was partly allowed by the trial Court directing the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,21,000/- per month from April, 2008 to May, 2009 on or before 15-06-2009 and he shall continue to deposit the future monthly rent at the same rate on 10th of every succeeding month. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that after termination of licence, the respondent sent demand draft for Rs.2,80,000/- towards the licence fee for a month and therefore, that can be taken as admitted licence fee per month, that the trial Court ought to have directed the respondent to deposit the rent at the same rate as mentioned in the demand draft and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent did not admit that the admitted rent payable is Rs.2,80,000/-, that the rent payable during the licence period is Rs.1,21,000/-, that the trial Court after considering the material on record, rightly directed the respondent to deposit arrears of rent at Rs.1,21,000/- per month and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision. 6. Order XV-A CPC reads thus: “In a suit for recovery of possession, or termination of lease, with or without a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent, or licence fee, known with whatever description, the defendant while filing his written statement, shall deposit the amount , representing the undisputed amount calculated up to the date into the court and shall continue to deposit such amount which becomes payable thereafter within one week from the date on which it becomes due, till the judgment is rendered in the suit.” The above provision makes it clear that the Court has got power to direct the licencee to deposit undisputed arrears calculated up to the date into the Court. Sub-Section (2) of Order XV-A CPC provides that after filing of the written statement if separate plea has been taken by the defendant in the written statement that no arrears of rent or licence fee exist, it shall be competent for the Court to pass an order in this regard after giving due opportunity to both parties in determining the licence fee. 6. The demand draft allegedly sent by the respondent offering to pay Rs.2,80,000/- towards licence fee after termination of lease is denied. Similarly, the respondent has given an explanation for sending the demand draft, but not towards rent payable for each month. Those issues have to be decided after adducing necessary evidence. In view of the fact that the respondent herein nowhere admitted about the licence fee payable to the petitioner is Rs.2,80,000/-, the trial Court rightly taken into consideration the licence fee during the period of licence is only Rs.1,21,000/-. The said order does not suffer from any infirmities. 7. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that if the respondent vacates the premises, he will sustain huge loss and it cannot be recovered. In view of the factual scenario, where the documents have been seriously in dispute, that cannot be decided in an interlocutory stage. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:03-06- 2010 Hsd