THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3666 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 20.06.2011 passed in I.A.No.3942 of 2010 in O.S.No.657 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby and where under the learned Chief Judge directed the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh per month towards rents / damages from the date of filing of the suit till the date of order within two months. 2 The first respondent is the landlord and whereas the petitioner is the tenant of the premises No.7-1-621/15/(13/3RT) situated at Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad. The landlord filed the suit for eviction. He also moved I.A.No.3942 of 2010 seeking a direction to the defendants to deposit Rs.15,50,599/- towards arrears of rents. According to the landlord, the monthly rent is Rs.1,70,500/-. Whereas the tenant filed counter resisting the application by taking a plea that the monthly rent is only Rs.60,000/- Neither of the parties produced any material to show that rent for the premises is either at Rs.60,000/- or at Rs.1,70,500/-. The learned Chief Judge taking note of the material placed on record proceeded to direct the tenant to deposit rents / damages at the rate of Rs.1.00 lakh per month by order dated 20.06.2011. Hence the present revision. 3 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/landlord and peruse the order impugned in this revision. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submits that the agreed rent is only Rs.60,000/- and not Rs.1,70,000/- and therefore the order passed by the trial court directing the petitioner/tenant to deposit Rs.1.00 lakh per month is not legal and proper. 5 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent/landlord submits that the agreed rent for the schedule premises is Rs.1,70,500/- per month and the trial court having taken note of the memorandum of understanding proceeded to fix the rent at Rs.1.00 lakh per month and the said order is an equitable order and therefore the order passed by the trial court does not warrant any interference. 6 In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant submits that even if the rent at the rate of Rs.1.00 lakh per month is deposited by the petitioner / tenant, the first respondent / landlord cannot be permitted to withdraw more than Rs.60,000/- per month. 7 No material has been placed on record by the first respondent/ landlord to show that the rent is more than Rs.60,000/- per month I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. Neither of the parties placed any documentary proof to substantiate their respective contentions. The trial court exercising its discretionary power directed the petitioner / tenant to deposit Rs.1.00 lakh per month towards rents / damages as no specific material has been placed by the first respondent / landlord to prove that the agreed rent is Rs.1,70,500/-. 8 Having considered the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to not to permit the first respondent / landlord to withdraw more than Rs.60,000/- per month from the rents / damages which the petitioner / tenant is required to deposit pursuant to the order impugned in the revision. 9 This revision is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. However, time for payment of arrears is extended by one more month from today. ------------------------------------------ SRI B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. 14.11.2011 Kvsn