1 wp 9692.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9692 OF 2010 Vasantlal S/o Haridas Bhanushali .. Petitioner Versus Hiralal S/o Dagdulal Pagariya Deceased through his L.R.s 1-A Sow. Padma Vijay Kothari and another .. Respondents Shri B. A. Darak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. G. Ladda, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioner had filed rent suit bearing No. 10/2005 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The same was decreed. The present defendant preferred an appeal. The matter was remanded. 2. During the pendency of the suit after remand, the petitioner moved an application U/O XV-A of the Code of Civil 2 wp 9692.10 Procedure seeking directions against the defendant to deposit the rent amount. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Shri Darak, the learned counsel states that Order XV-A of Civil Procedure Code mandates the tenant to deposit the rent every month. The tenant has not deposited any amount towards the rent. Order XV-A further mandates that if the rent is not deposited, the defence of the tenant is to be struck off. According to the learned counsel none of these aspects have taken into consideration by the Trial Judge. 4. The provisions of Order XV-A are applicable as against a tenant in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and possession. In the present case, the trial judge has observed that the tenant has disputed the relationship. So also has stated that he is not in possession of the suit property. In such circumstances, the provision of Order XV-A was not ipso facto applicable. Be it as it may, the suit is of the year 2005. It would be better for the parties to get the suit decided at the earliest on merits. 5. Taking into account the conspectus of the matter, I do not 3 wp 9692.10 find any error committed by the trial judge in rejecting the application. The trial judge shall decide the suit expeditiously. Taking into account that the suit is of the year 2005, the Trial Judge shall make endeavor to decide the suit within a period of six months. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11