THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4761 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.192 of 2011 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, against the petitioner, for eviction from suit schedule premises. He pleaded that the petitioner joined as a lessee in the suit schedule promises in the year 2006, on a rent of Rs.1,900/-, per month, for the first two years, and thereafter, Rs.2,200/- per month. It was alleged that the petitioner paid rent till August 2008, and thereafter, committed default. Notice is said to have been issued. The respondent has also filed I.A.No.479 of 2011 under Sections 94 and 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to direct the petitioner to deposit the rents. The petitioner filed a written statement in the suit and counter in the I.A. His plea was that the sister of the respondent is the owner of the premises, and that his wife, who was a tenant, had entered an agreement of sale to purchase the very premises. He further stated that his wife filed O.S.No.79 of 2011 in the Court of District Judge, Ongole, for specific performance of agreement of sale and that the same is pending. He ultimately pleaded that he is not the tenant or lessee of the respondent and that the I.A. filed for deposit of rents is not maintainable. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 30.09.2011. Hence, this revision. Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the very existence of relationship of lessor and lessee is in dispute, there was no basis for the trial Court in allowing I.A. He contends that even where an application is filed under Order XV-A of C.P.C., an order directing payment of rents can be passed, only when there is no dispute, as to the existence of relationship of lesser and lessee, and quantum of rent. Sri Ch.Ramanand, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner committed default in payment of the rents for the last about two years and that the so-called agreement of sale is fictitious. He contends that with the sole object of remaining in possession without payment of rent, the petitioner and his wife are taking inconsistent pleas. The respondent stated that he is the owner of the premises and that the petitioner is his lessee. An application was also filed for deposit of rents, pending disposal of the suit. The reply given by the petitioner was that his wife was the tenant of the premises under the sister of the respondent, and that there exists an agreement of sale. If, in fact, that is the consistent version of the petitioner and his wife, things would have been different. The wife of the petitioner filed O.S.No.79 of 2011 in the Court of District Judge, Ongole. In that suit, she stated the manner in which an agreement of sale was executed between herself and the sister of the respondent, by name, Rajani. Another statement made therein is that her husband, the petitioner herein, is the tenant of the premises. The relevant statement in the plaint reads as under: “…In fact, the defendant (Rajini), being the permanent resident of Guntur, she made arrangement with her father to give on rent, the plaint schedule property and in fact the plaintiff’s husband (the petitioner herein) obtained the plaint schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.1,900/- from defendant’s father and paying the rents to him regularly…” The inconsistency is obvious and the version of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. However, in view of the dispute as to the quantum, it is directed that the rent shall be treated as Rs.2,000/- per month, instead of Rs.2,200/-, subject to final adjudication in the suit. Hence, the C.R.P. is disposed of, upholding the order under revision, except as regards the quantum of rent. The petitioner shall pay the arrears of rent @ Rs.2,000/-, per month, within six weeks from today and he shall continue to deposit the rents, till the disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:05.11.2011 GJ