THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.913 of 2010 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.4712 of 2008 in the Court of the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioners for eviction from the suit schedule premises. It was pleaded that the premises comprising of ground and first floors were given on lease to the petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- and in spite of issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioners did not vacate the premises. They have also filed I.A.No.2225 of 2008 under Order 15-A; C.P.C. with a prayer to direct the petitioners to pay damages at the rate of Rs.22,500/- per month from 16.12.2008 to 24.12.2008 and at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per month thereafter and to strike off the defence in case the petitioners commit default in payment thereof. The petitioners opposed the application by stating that they have already filed R.C.Nos.222 and 223 of 2006 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad with a prayer to permit them to deposit the rents at the rate of Rs.3,300/- for ground floor and Rs.2,750/- for the first floor every month. Through its order, dated 22.01.2010, the trial Court allowed I.A.No.2225 of 2008, by directing the petitioners to deposit the rents at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per month. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners do not dispute that they are the tenants in respect of the suit schedule premises. However, they take the plea that the leases in respect of ground and first floors are separate and if the rent for the premises is taken into account, the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 apply. Prima facie, it is evident that it is under a single document that the entire premises comprising of ground and first floors are given on rent. The question as to whether the leases for the two portions are separate, needs to be considered at the time of hearing the suit. Order 15-A C.P.C. confers power upon the trial Court to pass an order directing the defendant in a suit for eviction filed under Section 106 of the Act, to deposit the rents. If there exists any dispute, it can prima facie adjudicate the same. The respondents claimed damages at a far high amount. The trial Court rightly took the view that the question of awarding damages by way of interim measure does not arise and that such exercise has to be undertaken after the suit is decreed. It has proceeded to direct the petitioners to pay the amount, which was reflected in the lease deed itself. Therefore, no exception can be taken to it. At the same time, the amount, if any deposited by the petitioners to the credit of R.C.C.Nos.222 and 223 of 2006 needs to be taken into account. Hence, the civil revision petition is disposed of, upholding the order under revision, but directing that the trial Court shall give credit to the amount which was already deposited by the petitioners to the credit of R.C.C.Nos.222 and 223 of 2006. In case any amount deposited therein is not credited to the account of the respondents, the petitioners shall be entitled to withdraw the same and deposit to the credit of O.S.No.4712 of 2008. As and when the amounts are deposited, it shall be open to the respondents to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security. It is also made clear that the deposits made by the petitioners shall be without prejudice to their contentions that may be advanced in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:09.08.2010 kdl