Judgment :- (1) This Court while admitting the civil revision petition on 20. 11. 2008 in crp MP No. 6730/2008 made the following order: "There shall be interim stay on condition of petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) within four weeks from today, failing which the interim stay stands automatically dissolved. On such deposit the respondent is at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. Notice." It is stated that the conditional order had been complied with. (2) The present civil revision petition is filed as against an order dated 17. 9. 2008 made in I. A. No. 539/2008 in OS No. 934/ 2007 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad. The learned judge on an application filed under order XV-A read with Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter in short referred to as "code" for the purpose of convenience), directed the revision petitioner/ respondent/defendant to deposit Rs. 3,76,750/-as arrears as on 31. 1. 2008 and for the later period till August 2008 at the rate of rs. 15,750/- p. m. and such deposit to be made by 14. 10. 2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred. (3) Sri Veer a Reddy, the learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the Grounds of Revision and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the direction issued by the learned Judge without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without deciding the actual quantum of rent also, since there is controversy, cannot be sustained. The Counsel also had pointed out to the relevant portions of the findings recorded and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the conditional order had been complied with, it would be just and proper to issue suitable directions to the learned judge to dispose of the main suit itself instead of confirming the order as such. (4) On the contrary, Sri Sanjeeva Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondent in the civil revision petition/ petitioner/plaintiff would maintain that in the light of Exs. A1 and A2 and Exs. (4) On the contrary, Sri Sanjeeva Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondent in the civil revision petition/ petitioner/plaintiff would maintain that in the light of Exs. A1 and A2 and Exs. B1 to B11 and also in the light of certain admissions made in the notice, reply notice and also in the written statement as well, there cannot be any doubt or controversy relating to the quantum of rent and further in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Judge, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with. (5) Heard the Counsel. (6) In the light of the submissions made by the Counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this civil revision petition: "1. Whether the order under challenge is liable to be disturbed or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to?" (7) Point No. 1 : For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as "petitioner" and "respondent" as shown in I. A. No. 539/2008 in O. S. No. 934/2007 aforesaid. It is needless to say that the respondent/defendant in the said application preferred the present crp. The said application was filed under order XV-A read with Section 131 of the Code praying for appropriate directions to the respondent to deposit the admitted rents into Court and in default to strike of the defence and decree the suit. The said provision Order XV-A of the Code dealing with Striking off defence in a suit by a lessor, reads as hereunder : - "(1) In any suit by a lessor for eviction of a lessee or for the recovery of rent and future mesne profits from him, the defendant shall deposit such amount as the Court may direct on account of arrears upto the date of the order (within such time as the court may fix) and thereafter continue to deposit in each succeeding month the rent claimed in the suit as the Court may direct. The defendant shall continue to deposit such amount till the decision of the suit unless otherwise directed. In the event of any default in making the deposit, as aforesaid, the Court subject o the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike off the defence. The defendant shall continue to deposit such amount till the decision of the suit unless otherwise directed. In the event of any default in making the deposit, as aforesaid, the Court subject o the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike off the defence. (2) Before passing an order for striking off the defence, the Court shall serve notice on the defendant or his advocate to show-cause as to why the defence should not be struck off, and the Court shall consider any such cause, if shown in order to decide as to whether the defendant should be relieved from an order striking off the defence. (3) The amount deposited under this rule shall be paid to the plaintiff lessor or his advocate and the receipt of such amount shall not have the effect of prejudicing the claim of the plaintiff and it would not also be treated as a waiver of notice of termination." (8) The petitioner/plaintiff i. e. , the respondent in the present civil revision petition, filed the suit for eviction, injunction and mesne profits in respect of the suit schedule property against the respondent i. e. , the revision petitioner. She claims that the rent payable by the respondent is at rs. 15,750/-per month, but he falsely alleged that the same is at Rs. 14,000/- per month. The respondent is never regular in payment of rents they were being paid in instalments inspite of my protest. The payments made by the respondent were accepted under protest and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. It is further stated that on 31. 1. 2007, the respondent was in arrears of rs. 2,57,750/-after adjusting the payment made by him and also the fixed deposit of rs. 25,000/ -. If the rents for the month of february and March 2007 are taken into account, the total outstanding payable by the respondent would be Rs. 3,09,250/ -. It is further stated that the respondent failed to pay the arrears even after filing of the suit. The total amount due as on 29. 2. 2008 @ rs. 15,750/- per month would be Rs. 3,96,750/ -. Even otherwise, going by the admission of the respondent that the monthly rent payable by him is Rs. 14,000/- per month, the outstanding would be Rs. 3,79,250/ -. The total amount due as on 29. 2. 2008 @ rs. 15,750/- per month would be Rs. 3,96,750/ -. Even otherwise, going by the admission of the respondent that the monthly rent payable by him is Rs. 14,000/- per month, the outstanding would be Rs. 3,79,250/ -. The respondent is under obligation to pay the rents every month without any demur and he cannot squat over the suit property without discharging the above obligations. (9) The revision petitioner, as respondent, filed counter resisting the said application. He did not dispute the landlord and tenant relationship. But however, it is stated that on untenable grounds, the suit had been instituted. According to him, the monthly rent is Rs. 14,000/- but not rs. 15,750/ -. It is further stated that the rent was tendered regularly and the petitioner used to take the rent as per the whims and fancies of the husband of the petitioner. It is also further stated that the respondent was not in arrears at any point of time and the allegation that the respondent is due an amount of Rs. 2,57,750/-as on 31. 1. 2007 is totally false and without any basis and no statement is filed to show that the respondent fell into arrears in respect of the completed months. Further, it is stated that the petitioner had failed to show any details either in the plaint or in the petition with regard to the default of the payments and simply stated the amounts. The respondent had paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as deposit, but not rs. 25,000/ -. The petitioner, till the date of filing of the suit, had not issued a single notice to the respondent with regard to the arrears of rent nor prayed for the arrears of his plaint and this itself shows that the petitioner with mala fide intention and to harass and evict the respondent, concocted the story of arrears. 25,000/ -. The petitioner, till the date of filing of the suit, had not issued a single notice to the respondent with regard to the arrears of rent nor prayed for the arrears of his plaint and this itself shows that the petitioner with mala fide intention and to harass and evict the respondent, concocted the story of arrears. It is further stated that the respondent had been paying the rent regularly to the petitioner's husband and the petitioner's husband intentionally refused to take the rents after filing O. S. No. 643/2007 which was originally on the file of the junior Civil Judge and thereafter transferred to V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, the respondent had taken all measures to pay the rents but the petitioner refused to take and the cheques given to the Counsel for petitioner are also returned by the Counsel on the instructions of the petitioner. It is also further stated that the respondent filed a petition before the x Junior Civil Judge for deposit of rents and accordingly the said petition was allowed and the respondent deposited the rents into the Court upto November/december 2007, but however the Lodgment Schedule could not be obtained as the suit was transferred from that Court. It is also further stated that the respondent never made any wilful default in paying the rents and was paying the rents regularly and due to delay in getting the Lodgment Schedule the rents of recent months are due and is ready to pay the said amounts for the last three months immediately after obtaining the lodgment Schedule and obtained the cheques to pay the rents upto April 2008 on 15. 4. 2008. It was denied that the respondent has to pay Rs. 3 lakhs and above and in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances there are no merits in the petition and hence the same is liable to be dismissed, (10) The learned Judge marked the under noted Exhibits: Exa1 dt. 26. 22007 - office copy of legal notice ex. A. 2 dt. 24. 3. 2007 - Reply notice ex. B1 dt. 6. 4. 2006 - Receipt for Rs. 60,000/- Ex. B2 dt. 14. 4. 2006 - Receipt for Rs. 40,000/- Ex. B3 dt. 2. 5. 2006 - Receipt for Rs. 39,750/- Ex. B4 dt. 15. 9. 2006 - Receipt for Rs. 56,000/- Ex. B5 dt. 24. 10. A. 2 dt. 24. 3. 2007 - Reply notice ex. B1 dt. 6. 4. 2006 - Receipt for Rs. 60,000/- Ex. B2 dt. 14. 4. 2006 - Receipt for Rs. 40,000/- Ex. B3 dt. 2. 5. 2006 - Receipt for Rs. 39,750/- Ex. B4 dt. 15. 9. 2006 - Receipt for Rs. 56,000/- Ex. B5 dt. 24. 10. 2006 - Receipt for Rs. 14,000/- Ex. B6 dt. 15. 11. 2006 - Receipt for Rs. 14,000/- Ex. B7 dt. 31. 12. 2006 - Receipt for Rs. 14,000/- Ex. B8 dt. 20. 1. 2007 - Receipt for Rs. 14,000/- Ex. B. 9 dt. 1. 11. 2007 - Letter Ex. B10 and B11 - Cheques for Rs. 14,000/- each The learned Judge formulated the point or consideration at Para 6 and came to the conclusion that in the light of Order XV-A as applicable to the State of A. P. , suitable directions are to be issued and accordingly directed the respondent/defendant to deposit rs. 3,76,750/- as arrears as on 31. 1. 2008 and for the later period till August 2008 at the rate of Rs. 15,750/- per month and the deposit to be made by 14. 10. 2008. The learned Judge appreciated Exs. A1 and a2 and also Exs. B1 to B11 and recorded findings in detail. The learned Judge had taken into consideration the respective stands taken in the notices and also in the written statement and came to the conclusion that the agreed rent to be taken as Rs. 15,750/-though the stand taken by the revision petitioner is to the effect that it is only rs. 14,000/ -. The calculation memos also had been taken into consideration. It is also needless to say that Rs. 2 lakhs already had been deposited. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, inasmuch as a direction already had been given to the respondent/defendant for depositing rs. 3,75,750/- as arrears as on 31. 1. 2008 and for the later period till August 2008 at the rate of Rs. 15,750/- per month by 14. 10. 2008, taking into consideration the fact that the deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs already had been made, the rest of the amount to be deposited within a period of two months from today, in default, the learned Judge, is at liberty to pass appropriate orders. 15,750/- per month by 14. 10. 2008, taking into consideration the fact that the deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs already had been made, the rest of the amount to be deposited within a period of two months from today, in default, the learned Judge, is at liberty to pass appropriate orders. (11) Point No. 2 : With the above observation, since the civil revision petition is devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.