IN THE HIGH Court OF JUUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.4908 and 4909 of 2010 Between: Smt. L Usha rani … Petitioner And: Naveenkumar Jaiswal … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.4908 & 4909 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These revision petitions are directed against the separate orders dated 13.09.2010 in IA Nos.1273 and 1274 of 2009 in OS No.3601 of 2009, respectively, on the file of the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein, the said applications filed by the respondent herein under Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the petitioner for deposit of rents and maintenance from July 2008 till July 2009 in IA No.1273 of 2009 and for the period from August 2009 onwards in IA No.1274 of 2009, were allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is the tenant of Flat No.301, 3rd Floor, 11-5-341/3,Jaiswal Residency, Red Hills, Hyderabad, on a monthly rent of Rs.6500/-. According to the respondent-landlord, the petitioner/tenant agreed to enhance the rent at the rate of 10% after two years. It is alleged that the petitioner/tenant paid rents regularly till June 2008 and thereafter, committed default and the cheque issued by the petitioner was dis-honoured. According to the respondent, the petitioner vacated the house in July 2008, but kept the same under lock and key and waited for 10 months. The respondent issued a quit notice and thereafter, filed a suit for eviction. The present applications are filed for a direction to the petitioner herein to deposit the rents at the rate of Rs.6500/- per month from July 2008 onwards. 4. As seen from the impugned order, the petitioner herein did not advance any arguments also. As the petitioner herein did not adduce any evidence, showing payment of any rents, the trial Court directed deposit of the rent and maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month for the period from July 2008 till July 2009 in IA No.1273 of 2009 and at the rate of Rs.6500/- per month from July 2008 till August 2010. There appears to be overlapping in respect of the period insofar as the period July 2008 to July 2009 and also in the quantum of rent directed to be deposited for the said period in the orders passed by the trial Court. The trial Court, while granting 15 days time to the petitioner herein to deposit the rents, further directed that in default, defence of the respondent shall be struck off. That apart, the petitioner herein states that she filed an application for setting aside the order 09.06.2010 in both IAs and the trial Court endorsed on the said petition that ‘counter not filed, no representation despite calling several times. Hence, treated no counter’. The petitioner herein also filed counter in IA Nos.1273 and 1274 of 2009 opposing the said applications along with the petition to set aside the order dated 09.06.2010. It is stated that notice of the said application was given to the respondent counsel and the learned counsel for the respondent endorsed as to the receipt of the copy and stating no objection. It is not known what orders are passed on the said application. Subsequently on 13.09.2010, the impugned orders came to be passed. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner herein is that an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to contest the IAs on merits, inasmuch as counter was also filed along with the petition to set aside the order dated 09.06.2010. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court ought to have disposed of the petition filed for setting aside the order dated 09.06.2010, especially, when it is stated that other side also endorsed no objection. In the circumstances, it is considered just and proper to remit the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein of hearing duly receiving the counter filed in IA Nos.1273 and 1274 of 2009. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. 6. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.03.2011 bss