THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.1435 of 2010 ORDER: Respondents 1 and 2 are owners of Bungalow No.169, Old Airport Road, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad. The same was leased to the 1st petitioner-club. O.S.No.41 of 2009 was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4, for eviction from the suit schedule property. They filed I.A.No.771 of 2009, with a prayer to direct the petitioners to deposit the rents from August, 2008 to February, 2009, @ Rs.1,09,395/- per month, and to continue to pay the rents. An order was passed in that I.A., on 20-10-2009, directing that the amount be deposited. Respondents 1 and 2 filed E.P.No.124 of 2009 for execution of the order in I.A.No.771 of 2009. Through its docket order dated 25-03-2010, the Executing Court issued warrant of attachment of movables, under Rule 43 of Order 21 C.P.C. The same is challenged in this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that I.A.No.771 of 2009, filed by the respondents 1 and 2, was totally untenable in law. He contends that even assuming that the direction was given therein, filing of E.P., and even attachment of movables is contrary to law. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners do not deny the existence of lease in their favour, in respect of the property, owned by the respondents 1 and 2, and that no exception can be taken to the order under revision. The respondents 1 and 2, no doubt, made an effort to ensure payment of rents, for the premises, during the pendency of the suit. As a matter of fact, Order 15-A C.P.C. was incorporated to protect the interests of the owners of the property. It mandates that, in a suit for eviction of a tenant, the defendant shall be under obligation to pay rents, including arrears, along with the written-statement, and default in this regard would entail in forfeiture of the defence. Respondents 1 and 2 appear to have filed I.A. under Order 39 Rule 10 C.P.C. Serious doubt existed, as to whether such an application can be maintained in a suit for eviction. Be that as it may, initiation of execution proceedings and directing attachment of movable properties for enforcement of an order passed in an I.A., is rather extraordinary, the trial Court ought to have hesitated before resorting to such extreme steps. Direction to the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee, and attachment of movables, in default thereof; are outside the scope of E.P., even if it otherwise tenable. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. The record discloses that the petitioners furnished bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, in compliance with the condition imposed by this Court, for granting interim order. They do not dispute their obligation to pay the rents. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 shall be entitled to invoke the bank guarantee, furnished by the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06-07-2010. KO