THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2302 of 2006 ORDER: The first respondent filed O.S.No.26 of 2003 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Nellore, against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 10.04.2002. He pleaded that the petitioner agreed to sell items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties under agreement of sale, dated 10.04.2002 for a consideration of Rs.13,75,000/- and delivered possession of the premises. According to the first respondent, a sale deed was executed in his favour, by the petitioner in respect of item 3 of the suit schedule property and his request as regards items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule was not acceded to. He pleaded that the petitioner inducted respondent Nos.2 to 5 into the property as lessees and after the agreement of sale, respondent Nos.2 to 5 paid the rents up to June, 2003 but avoided payment of rent thereafter, at the instance of the petitioner. With this allegation, he filed I.A.No.276 of 2003 under Section 151 CPC with a prayer to direct respondent Nos.2 to 5 to deposit monthly rents into the Court. The I.A. was opposed by the petitioner. He pleaded that the agreement of sale relied upon by the first respondent is a rank forgery and his right to receive the rents cannot be defeated. Through its order, dated 22.08.2005, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Heard Smt.M.Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the first respondent was served with notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not necessary to this Civil Revision Petition. The suit filed by the first respondent is the one for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule property. Till the suit is decreed, he cannot claim the right of ownership over the property. The petitioner has taken a specific plea that the agreement of sale relied upon by the first respondent is a forged one. The truth or otherwise of that plea needs to be decided on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced by the parties. The occasion to direct the tenants to deposit the rents into the Court would arise only when there is no dispute as to the existence of tenancy. As of now, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the tenants of the petitioner. It is not even the case of the first respondent that he inducted the tenants into the property. Viewed from any angle, the order under revision cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 9th SEPTEMBER, 2009. kvni