THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1156 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 02.02.2011, in I.A.No.320 of 2010 in O.S.No.167 of 2010 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, was ordered granting stay of execution of the decree in O.S.No.61 of 2002 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur till disposal of the appeal on condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the damages towards use and occupation from 08.12.2001. It was further directed that on such deposit 1st respondent- plaintiff is entitled to receive the same on proper undertaking and without furnishing any security. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the 1s t respondent-plaintiff. Perused the records. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the suit-O.S.No.61 of 2002 for eviction of the petitioner, who is a tenant in the plaint schedule premises, and the same was decreed for eviction and also for arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal-A.S.No.167 of 2010 and he also filed I.A.No.320 of 2010 seeking stay of execution of the decree under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC. While granting stay, the trial Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the damages for use and occupation from 08.12.2001 till date. Aggrieved by the said direction, petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that even in the counter filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff in I.A.No.320 of 2010, the payment of rents into the Court upto July, 2005 is admitted and therefore, petitioner cannot be made to pay the rents or damages from 08.12.2001 onwards. 5. A perusal of the counter filed by the 1st respondent- plaintiff in I.A.No.320 of 2010 would show that it is admitted therein that rents were paid upto July, 2005 and thereafter, petitioner did not choose to deposit a single pie. In view of the said averment contained in the counter of the 1st respondent-plaintiff, it is considered just and appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit the rents for the period from August, 2005 till date and continue to deposit the same at the same rate as directed in the decree before the 10th day of every succeeding month. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed a suit-O.S.No.292 of 2002 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against the respondent for specific performance of lease agreement, dated 19.01.2001, and the said suit was dismissed and the appeal filed was also dismissed and now the matter is pending before this Court in S.A.No.357 of 2008. 7. Petitioner filed a copy of the interim order in S.A.M.P.No.1618 of 2010 in S.A.No.357 of 2008, wherein the petitioner therein i.e. 1st respondent herein-plaintiff was permitted to withdraw 1/4th of the amount deposited to the credit of the suit-O.S.No.292 of 2002. The said interim order is stated to be in force. Hence, on the petitioner depositing 50% of the arrears of the damages towards use and occupation from August, 2005 onwards, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, 1st respondent-plaintiff is permitted to withdraw 50% thereof without furnishing any security. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- paid by the petitioner towards advance security deposit and good will amount is lying with the 1st respondent and the same will have to be adjusted. 9. The adjustment of the said amount, if any, would fall for consideration by the Court in the concerned proceedings at the appropriate stage, but not in the present Civil Revision Petition. In the circumstances, the impugned order is modified as stated above. 10. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 05th November, 2011. Tsy