THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 2798 of 2010 Dated: 22.10.2010 Between: D.Nada Muni, Hindupur and another. ..... PETITIONERS AND P.Bhakthavasthalam, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 2798 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.06.2010 in I.A.No.112 of 2010 in O.S.No.118 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The respondent herein filed the suit for eviction of the defendants/ revision petitioners from the suit schedule premises. It was pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent herein that the defendants/revision petitioners who were granted lease in respect of the suit schedule property had failed to vacate the premises even after completion of the five years lease period and moreover the payment of rents were stopped. Hence, the plaintiff got issued notice dated 01.06.2006 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and thereafter the main suit was filed. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.112 of 2010 under Order 15-A Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. with a prayer to direct the defendants to deposit the arrears of rent into the Court to the tune of Rs.4,23,504/- and also future rents from the date of filing of the suit at the rate of Rs.11,764/- till the date of eviction and in default to strike of the defence set up by the defendants. The said application was opposed by the defendants/revision petitioners contending that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent. It was also contended that the plaintiff/respondent executed a registered usufruct mortgage deed in respect of the suit schedule shop on 18.12.1995 and delivered possession to the 1st respondent by receiving Rs. 1 lakh for his necessities. It was claimed that in the mortgage deed it was mentioned that the plaintiff need not pay interest to the said amount and the first defendant need not pay rent for five years or till discharge of the loan. Thus, it was contended that there was relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee and not landlord and tenant. Whereas the plaintiff filed Exs.A.1 to A.4 documents in support of his plea, the defendants filed Ex.B.1 registered usufruct mortgage deed dated 18.12.1995 to substantiate their claim. After hearing both the parties, the Court below by order dated 24.06.2010 allowed I.A.No.112 of 2010 and directed the defendants to deposit arrears of rents to the tune of Rs.4,23,504/- within 15 days and also to deposit future rents from the date of filing of the suit at the rate of Rs.11,764/- on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the defendants. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. Order 15-A of C.P.C. which was inserted by A.P High Court amendment vide G.O.Rt.No.156 Law (LA&J-Home Courts D1) dated 29.01.2005 reads as under: (1) in a suit for recovery of possession, on termination of lease, or licence, 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 arrears, calculated up to that 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. (2) Where the defendant pleads in the written statement that no arrears of rent or licence fee exists, it shall be competent for the Court to pass an order in this regard, after affording opportunity to both the parties and in case any amount is found due, the defendant shall be under obligation to deposit the same, within the time stipulated by the Court and continue to deposit the amount which becomes payable thereafter, as provided under Rule 1. Provided that the time stipulated for payment of amount, as aforesaid, may be extended by the Court for reasons to be (received) for a period not exceeding 15 days. If the defendant commits default in making the deposits, as aforesaid, the Court shall strike offence the defence. On such deposit it shall be competent for the plaintiff to withdraw the same. It is clear from the above provision that in a suit for recovery of possession on termination of lease, the defendant along with the written statement is bound to deposit the undisputed arrears of rent calculated up to that date in to the Court. However, in case the defendant pleads that no arrears of rent exists, as per Rule 2 it is for the Court to pass an order after hearing both parties and in case any amount is found due, the defendant shall be under an obligation to deposit the same in the Court. In the instant case, Rule 2 of Order 15-A is attracted since the defendants/revision petitioners disputed the plaintiff’s claim for arrears of rent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Ex.B.1-mortgage deed dated 18.12.1995 itself shows that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and therefore, the Court below committed a grave error in directing the defendants to deposit the alleged arrears of rents in the Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff while seeking to justify the order under revision, contended that the same warrants no interference on any ground whatsoever. It is true that the defendants while relying upon Ex.B.1 mortgage deed dated 18.12.1995 pleaded that the plaintiff had delivered possession of the suit schedule shop to them on 18.12.1995 on execution of the registered usufruct mortgage deed. As per the terms of the said mortgage deed, it is contended that the defendants need not pay rent for a period of five years or till the discharge of Rs. 1 lakh received by the plaintiff. However, having regard to the fact that the first defendant himself admitted the jural relationship between parties while deposing in O.S.No.73 of 2006 on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, the Court below disbelieved the plea of the defendants. The certified copy of the deposition of the first defendant in O.S.No.73 of 2006 was marked as Ex.A.4 wherein it was admitted by the first defendant that the second defendant was running business as tenant under the plaintiff herein and a lease agreement was also executed for a period of five years. It was also admitted that the lease agreement was executed in the year 1997 for a period of five years. Having found that the lease deed was executed in 1997 subsequent to Ex.B.1-mortgage deed dated 18.12.1995 and that no other material could be produced to show that the terms and conditions of Ex.B.1 were not fulfilled, the Court below did not accept the contention of the defendants. Even according to the petitioners/defendants, the respondent/plaintiff was not entitled to receive the rents as per Ex.B.1 for a period of five years only from 18.12.1995, whereas the suit claim for arrears of rent is for the period from 06.10.2002. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above, the Court below had rightly concluded that there was jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants as landlord and tenants. Such finding of fact recorded by the Court below for the purpose of an application under Order 15-A of C.P.C. warrants no interference by this Court. It is also relevant to note that the Court below made it clear that the plaintiff shall not withdraw the amount to be deposited to the credit of the suit until the disposal of the suit. The said order being in strict compliance with the provisions of Order 15-A of C.P.C. did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 22.10.2010 KLP