IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH (5TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.5120 of 2010 Between: G.Sirisha, rep. by her GPA Holder … Petitioner And: Dr. Usha Mohan … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5120 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.09.2010 in IA No.628 of 2010 in OS No.1238 of 2009 on the file of the 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order 15-A CPC seeking a direction for payment of arrears of rent from 04.07.2008 to till date and future rents at Rs.40,000/-, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for eviction of the respondent/defendant from the schedule premises and for recovery of arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.4 lakhs. According to the petitioner, she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule house property, which comprises double storied building at Attapur and she leased out the same to the defendant for running nursing home on a monthly rent of Rs.14,000/- per month on 08.08.2000 for a period of 11 months and subsequently, the rent was enhanced to Rs.40,000/- per month and the period of lease was extended to 8 years. The plaintiff further pleads that the lease period expired on 04.11.2008 and the defendant without vacating the premises, avoided payment of rent from 04.07.2008 and by now the arrears of rent are due in a sum of Rs.4 lakhs. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has taken adjoining premises also on lease on a rent of Rs.40,000/- per month and thus, total rents payable for the two buildings is Rs.80,000/-. 4. The defendant filed written statement inter-alia contending that the rent for the entire premises is only Rs.40,000/- and the same is being paid regularly and that the plaintiff borrowed the loan from the bank for construction of the building and for discharge of the said loan, the plaintiff has been taking hand loan from the defendant at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month. The plaintiff would contend that the defendant has paid the entire amount of Rs.80,000/- by way of cheques towards rent only and there was never any transaction of hand loan, that too, at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month between the plaintiff and defendant. In support of her plea, the plaintiff filed bank statements which showed copies of the cheques showing remittance of Rs.80,000/- by the defendant. The defendant also filed certain bank statements showing remittance of Rs.40,000/- on certain occasions. 5. The question as to whether or not the defendant was paying a sum of Rs.40,000/- by way of hand loan to the plaintiff in connection with the discharge of bank loan is a matter to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. The admitted amount of rent is only Rs.40,000/- per month. In the event of the defendant’s failure to establish her plea regarding the alleged hand loan and the plaintiff succeeding in establishing that the total rent for the two building was Rs.80,000/-, the plaintiff would certainly be entitled for a decree for the arrears of rent at that rate, which is already prayed for in the suit. At this stage while considering the application filed under Order 15-A, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek a direction, directing the defendant to deposit the disputed amount of Rs.40,000/- also. 6. It is not disputed that the admitted amount of Rs.40,000/- towards rent is being regularly remitted and the defendant shall continue to remit the same. Insofar as the other amount of Rs.40,000/- per month is concerned, as the same is in dispute and the truth or otherwise of the same needs to be decided on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial, no direction can be given to the defendant at this stage to deposit the said amount also. It is open to the plaintiff to avail other remedies that may be available under law to safeguard his interest pertaining to his claim over the disputed amount of Rs.40,000/- per month before the trial Court. In the circumstances, the impugned order dismissing the application does not therefore, call for any interference. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 05.09.2011 bss