THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2628 OF 2011 DATED: 06.09.2011 Between: Boina Nagendra Prasad … Petitioner And C. Omprakash .. Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2628 OF 2011 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.751 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the I-Additional District Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.751 of 2010 for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property as well as recovery of rents and mesne profits. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed I.A.No.2020 of 2010 under Order 15A Rule 1 of CPC seeking a direction to the defendant to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- towards rents due and continue to deposit every month at the rate of Rs.20,000/- till the disposal of the suit. Though the said application was opposed by the defendant/revision petitioner, the Court below by order dated 7.3.2011 allowed I.A.No.2020 of 2010 directing to deposit Rs.3 Lakhs towards arrears of rent for the period from 23.10.2008 to 23.2.2010 at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month within two months and further to continue to deposit the current rent at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order dated 7.3.2011, the present Revision Petition is filed by the defendant. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. The suit was initially filed in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District as O.S.No.244 of 2010 and on transfer to the Court of the I-Addl. District Judge, it has been re- numbered as O.S.No.751 of 2010. The case of the plaintiff/respondent herein was that the suit schedule premises was purchased by him from the defendant/revision petitioner under the Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 20.09.2008 and on the same day the possession was delivered to him. Subsequently, a regular sale deed was also registered on 14.7.2009 and thus he acquired absolute rights of ownership in respect of the suit schedule premises. It is pleaded that the defendant had taken a part of the suit schedule premises on rent for a period of three months under a Rental Agreement executed between the parties. However he failed to vacate the premises and also postponed the payment of the agreed rent of Rs.20,000/- per month. Moreover, the defendant lodged a criminal complaint on 9.6.2009 against the plaintiff apart from filing O.S.No.394 of 2009 in the Court of the I-Addl. District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar against the plaintiff for cancellation of the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 20.09.2008. Since the tenancy was already terminated, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for eviction as well as recovery of rents and mesne profits. As per Order 15A of CPC the defendant is bound to deposit the rents due and therefore the plaintiff also filed I.A.No.2020 of 2010 for a direction to the defendant to deposit the arrears of rents and to continue to deposit the same till the disposal of the suit. In the counter to the said application, the defendant denied the plea that the suit schedule premises was sold to the plaintiff and that he had subsequently taken the suit premises on rent. While claiming title to the suit premises, it was contended that his signatures on the alleged agreement of sale-cum-GPA were obtained by the plaintiff forcibly and by coercion. The Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, the Memorandum of Understanding, the Registered Sale Deed, dated 14.7.2009, the Encumbrance Certificate, the Rental Agreement, dated 23.10.2008 and the Letters written by the defendant dated 10.04.2009 and 23.05.2009 were marked in evidence before the Court below as Exs.P-1 to P-3, P-5 & P-6 to P-9. On behalf of the defendant/Revision petitioner, a copy of the Registered Sale Deed, dated 10.04.1989 and the Legal Heir Certificate to show that he is the son of late B.L. Narasimha Rao in whose name the sale deed dated 10.04.1989 stands were marked in evidence. On appreciation of the said documents, the Court below having prima facie found that the plaintiff was the owner of the schedule premises, allowed I.A.No.2020 of 2010 directing the defendant to deposit the arrears of rent and also to continue to deposit the current rents every month as required under Order 15A of CPC. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail and having perused the entire material placed before this Court, I am unable to hold that the Court below committed any error in allowing the application filed under Order 15A Rule 1 of CPC. In the light of the material produced by the parties to substantiate their respective claims, the Court below was justified in recording a prima facie finding that the plaintiff/respondent herein was the owner of the suit schedule premises. Once such a finding is recorded, Order 15A of CPC comes into operation and the defendant is bound to comply with a requirement of depositing the rents. This Court is satisfied that the prima facie finding of fact recorded by the Court below with regard to the ownership claimed by the plaintiff and that he filed the suit as a lessor is correct. Hence the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 06.09.2011 gbs