HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4433 OF 2009 DATE:02-09-2011 BETWEEN Nallamalli Satyanarayana …Petitioner AND Smt. Pilla Anuradha …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4433 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner-defendant filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the orders of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, dated 24.7.2009 in allowing I.A.No.618 of 2008 in O.S.No.651 of 2008 filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein seeking a direction to the petitioner herein to deposit the arrears of rent at Rs.3,000/- per month from 1.12.2006 to 1.7.2008 to a tune of Rs.68,400/-. Plaintiff-respondent herein instituted the above suit stating that the suit schedule premises was leased out to the petitioner herein on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- on 6.1.1999 for doing cloth business in the name and style of ‘Khadi Vastralayam’. As per the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, the rent was enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.3,600/- from January, 2003 onwards and the petitioner herein paid the rent accordingly till November, 2006 and thereafter he fell in arrears of rent from 1.12.2006 to 1.7.2008 and committed willful default and therefore, the plaintiff-respondent terminated the lease through notice dated 11.6.2008 and filed the suit for his eviction. In the written statement, the petitioner herein admitted about obtaining the premises on lease for non-residential purpose for doing cloth business on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- and he also admitted about enhancement of rent to Rs.3,600/- per month from January, 2003 onwards. While denying the other averments of the plaint, he pleaded in para 12 that he handed over the schedule tenement to ‘Sri Raghavendra Khadi Bandar’ with the permission of the plaintiff in the year 2005 and by suppressing the said fact, with a mala fide intention to cause irreparable loss to the petitioner herein, the plaintiff filed the suit. Along with the suit, the plaintiff-respondent herein filed impugned I.A.No.618 of 2008 to direct the petitioner-defendant to deposit the arrears of rent for a period of 19 months at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from 1.12.2006 to 1.7.2008 and failure to deposit the same, to stop all suit proceedings and to order eviction of the petitioner-defendant from the suit schedule property. Even in the counter filed by the petitioner contesting the said I.A., he took the same plea that with the permission of the plaintiff- respondent herein, he handed over the possession of premises to ‘Sri Raghavendra Khadi Bandar’ in the year 2005 and there are no arrears of rent payable by him. By the impugned order, the lower Court allowed the I.A. holding that the contention of the petitioner herein that the suit schedule premises was handed over to ‘Sri Raghavendra Khadi Bandar’ with the permission of the plaintiff in the year 2005 itself shows that he sub-let the suit schedule premises to third person and that no record has been placed by the petitioner herein regarding payment of rent for the period claimed by the plaintiff. Once the petitioner admitted about his obtaining the premises on lease, it is for him to establish in the I.A. that he vacated the suit schedule premises and handed over the possession of the same to ‘Sri Raghavendra Khadi Bandar’ upon the instructions of the plaintiff. Since the petitioner failed to establish the said fact by cogent evidence, the order passed by the lower Court directing the petitioner to deposit the rents and failure to do so, ordering his eviction from the suit schedule premises does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 02, 2011 Tsr.