THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2785 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.176 of 2008 in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the respondent for eviction from the suit schedule premises and for recovery of rents. He pleaded that the suit schedule flat was purchased by him from one Smt.D.Bhoolaxmi through a sale deed, dated 24.10.2007 and though a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short ‘the Act’) was issued to the respondent, she did not vacate the premises. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.601 of 2008 under Order XV-A C.P.C. with a prayer to direct the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- towards arrears of rent up to the date of filing of the I.A. and for a direction to the respondent to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month with effect from 01.02.2008. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit opposing the I.A. She stated that she herself purchased the suit schedule property on 01.08.1998 for a sum of Rs.5,20,000/-. It is also stated that the vendor of the petitioner, by name Smt.D.Bhoolaxmi, figured as a witness to that transaction. Through its order, dated 21.04.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri N.Vidya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri M.Mehdi Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that in spite of his repeated efforts, he could not get any instructions from his client. Order XV-A C.P.C. enables the plaintiff in a suit for eviction, to file an application for deposit of rents by the defendant. In the instant case, the petitioner filed the suit after issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Act to the respondent. It is, no doubt, true that the respondent denied the very relationship of tenant and landlord. Had the suit not been preceded by any proceedings in which the respondent admitted that she is the tenant in respect of the premises, things would have been different altogether. It is a matter of record that the respondent filed O.S.No.827 of 2003 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad West and South, Ranga Reddy District against Smt.D.Bhoolaxmi, the vendor of the petitioner, and two others for the relief of perpetual injunction. In her plaint, the respondent categorically stated that she is the tenant of Bhoolaxmi and was fearing forcible eviction. She has also filed I.A.No.98 of 2004 under Section 151 C.P.C. in that suit with a prayer to permit her to deposit the rents in the Court. Therefore, the plea of the respondent that she herself is the owner of the premises on the strength of a document, dated 01.08.1998, cannot be believed. The only person, who could have disputed the purchase made by the petitioner is Smt.D.Bhoolaxmi, who admittedly was the landlady of the respondent. No such denial is forthcoming from the vendor of the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondent as to the relationship of landlord and tenant is somewhat peculiar. On the one hand, she pleaded that she is the tenant of the vendor of the petitioner and on the other, she denied the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. As long as she is not paying any rent to Smt.D.Bhoolaxmi, the vendor of the petitioner, she is under obligation to pay the rents. Now, coming to the question of quantum, Order XV-A C.P.C. confers power upon the Court to fix the quantum of rent also in the event of being dispute. A rent of Rs.3,000/- was fixed long back. The rent for similar premises in the area is said to be in the range of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil revision petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of I.A.No.601 of 2008. The arrears of rent from that date shall be deposited within six (6) weeks from today and the future rents shall be paid on or before 10th of every month commencing from September, 2010. As and when the rents are deposited, it shall be open to the petitioner to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:27.08.2010 kdl