ORDER This revision petition virtually relates to an order passed by the trial Court in a petition filed under Order XV-A CPC directing the 1st defendant to deposit Rs. 5,11,000/- towards arrears of rent before a specified date together with depositing of current rents every month into Court. Against the said order, the 1st defendant filed civil miscellaneous appeal before the lower appellate Court which Court dismissed the same holding that the said miscellaneous appeal is not maintainable. The lower appellate Court did not give any finding on merits under Order XV-A CPC. Questioning the same, the 1st defendant filed this revision petition. Both the Counsel before this Court submitted arguments on merits under Order XV-A CPC. 2. The plaintiff/respondent filed the suit in the trial Court for eviction of the defendants 1 and 3 from the schedule property. No other relief is claimed in the suit. It is the plaintiff's case that one Gali Chandrakumari who is wife of the 2nd defendant approached the plaintiff and obtained lease of the suit property on rent of Rs. 7,000/- per month and that the 1st defendant who is dealer in Hero Honda Motor Cycles, accordingly took possession of the premises in the year 1988 and that the tenancy was upto 31.3.1994 and that the 1st defendant committed default in payment of rents from February, 1994 onwards. It is further alleged that after issuing notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 terminating tenancy, for which there was no reply, the plaintiff filed OS No. 142 of 1994 in the Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur for eviction, arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation and that the 1st defendant filed written statement therein. It was alleged that power of attorney holder of the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit premisis to the 4th defendant who is partner of the 1st defendant firm for Rs. 5,00,000/-. It was alleged that power of attorney holder of the plaintiff agreed to sell the suit premisis to the 4th defendant who is partner of the 1st defendant firm for Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the plaintiff filed a petition in that previous suit to direct the 1st defendant to deposit arrears of rent and also rent pending that suit and that the 1st defendant filed a forged letter of the plaintiff's power of attorney agent dated 8.3.1994 in the suit to the effect that the schedule property was sold to the 4th defendant by a contract for sale dated 8.3.1994 and that therefore, the 1st defendant should pay the rent to the 4th defendant and that the 1st defendant has been paying rents to the 4th defendant. According to the plaintiff, the said I.A. in the previous suit was dismissed by the trial Court and when questioned the same in this High Court, this Court in CRP No. 4216 of 1997 allowed the same directing the 1st defendant to deposit Rs. 84,000/- and continue to pay rent pending the suit into Court, by order dated 1.2.1999; but the 1st defendant did not obey the said order. It is further alleged that after trial, the previous suit was dismissed insofar as relief of eviction is concerned, but decreed for damages for use and occupation at Rs. 10,000/- per month. Both the parties filed appeals against the said decree passed in the previous suit and those appeals are pending and that without prejudice to contentions of the plaintiff in the previous suit and the appeal filed by him thereon, the plaintiff was advised to file the present suit for the above relief. It is further alleged in the present suit that the 1st defendant being a tenant inducted by the plaintiff into the schedule premisis, without surrendering the property to the plaintiff, attorned admittedly to the 4th defendant, denying title of the plaintiff to the schedule property and therefore forfeited right to continue as a tenant under Section 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Pending the present suit in the trial Court, the plaintiff filed petition under Order XV-A CPC for direction to the 1st defendant to deposit Rs. 9,24,000/- before filing written statement. The trial Court passed order allowing the petition directing the 1st defendant to deposit Rs. Pending the present suit in the trial Court, the plaintiff filed petition under Order XV-A CPC for direction to the 1st defendant to deposit Rs. 9,24,000/- before filing written statement. The trial Court passed order allowing the petition directing the 1st defendant to deposit Rs. 5,11,000/- towards arrears of rent on or before 10.6.2009 and to deposit the rent for every month into Court on or before 10th of every succeeding month. 3. It is contention of the 1st defendant that the 1st defendant is not tenant of the plaintiff since December, 1995 as it vacated the suit premisis on 30.12.1995 and it was clearly pleaded in the previous suit in OS No. 142 of 1994 itself that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and that therefore, the petition under Order XV-A CPC is not maintainable as arrears of rent are not undisputed and admitted. 4. In this revision petition, it is contended by Counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant that the trial Court refused to receive written statement filed by the 1st defendant in view of Rule 1 of Order XV-A CPC. It is contended that when according to the 1st defendant, he vacated the suit premisis on 30.12.1995 and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is also contended that it is only undisputed or admitted arrears which are to be deposited by the undisputed tenant under Order XV-A CPC and therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is unsustainable in law. According to the petitioner's Counsel, the person who is in occupation of the suit premisis is the 3rd defendant viz., Associated Automobiles Private Limited represented by its Managing Director G.C. Benerji. On the other hand, it is pointed out by Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff that the said G.C. Benerji is no other than husband of the 1st defendant's partner Gali Chandrakumari. According to the 1st defendant, after surrender of the premisis to the 4th defendant by name Ch. Rama Rao who purchased the suit property from the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant took possession of the suit premisis from the 4th defendant According to the 1st defendant, since the 1st defendant is not in possession of the suit property, eviction suit against the 1st defendant is not maintainable. 5. Rama Rao who purchased the suit property from the plaintiff, the 3rd defendant took possession of the suit premisis from the 4th defendant According to the 1st defendant, since the 1st defendant is not in possession of the suit property, eviction suit against the 1st defendant is not maintainable. 5. Order XV-A was incorporated in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, CPC) by way of amendment in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Rules 1 and 2 of Order XV-A read as follows: "(1) In a suit for recovery of possession, on termination of lease, or licence, with or without a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent, or licence fee, known with whatever description, the defendant, while filing his written statement, shall deposit the amount, representing the undisputed arrears, calculated upto that due into the Court and shall continue to deposit such amount, which becomes payable thereafter within one week from the date on which it becomes due, till the judgment is rendered in the suit. (2) Whether the defendant pleads in the written statement that no arrears of rent or licence fee exists, it shall be competent for the Court to pass an order in this regard, after affording opportunity to both the parties, and in case any amount is found due, the defendant shall be under obligation to deposit the same, within the time stipulated by the Court and continue to deposit the amount which becomes payable thereafter, as provided under Rule 1: Provided that the time stipulated for payment of amount, as aforesaid, may be extended by the Court for reasons to be recorded for a period not exceeding 15 days. If the defendant commits default in making the deposits, as aforesaid, the Court shall strike off the defence. On such deposit it shall be competent for the plaintiff to withdraw the same. Explanation.-The expression "the amount representing the undisputed areas" shall mean the sum of rent, or lease fee calculated for the period for which it remained unpaid, after deducting from it any amount. (a) paid as tax, to a local authority, in respect of the property, (b) paid to the plaintiff under written acknowledgment, and (c) deposited into the Court, in any proceedings, in relation to the said property." 6. (a) paid as tax, to a local authority, in respect of the property, (b) paid to the plaintiff under written acknowledgment, and (c) deposited into the Court, in any proceedings, in relation to the said property." 6. Opening words of Rule 1 are to the effect "in a suit for recovery of possession, on termination of lease with or without a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent or licence fees". Therefore, it is immaterial whether the suit is filed for recovery of possession with a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent or not. Even though there is no prayer for recovery of arrears of rent, in order for deposit of rents either under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order XV-A can be passed. Though purport of the order either under Rule 1 or Rule 2 is one and the same, the difference is in stage of passing of such order and in the consequences which flow from default of complying with such an order. Rule 1 enables filing of such petition before filing written statement by the defendant who is a lessee or a licensee, whereas Rule 2 can be invoked after filing written statements by such defendant. Since Rule 1 speaks about duty of a tenant or lessee in depositing arrears "while filing his written statement", natural consequence of non-compliance of an order passed under Rule 1 is noted in Rule 2. Consequence of non-compliance of an order passed under Rule 2 for deposit of arrears of rent etc., is also striking off defence taken by the defendant in the written statement. In the case on hand it is stated that the petition under Order XV-A was filed by the plaintiff before the 1st defendant filed its written statement. 7. Secondly, Rule 1 contemplates "deposit of amount, representing the undisputed arrears". When the plaintiff pleads existence of arrears in payment of rent by the defendant and when the defendant disputes existence of such arrears of rent, then the arrears of rent become disputed. When there are no undisputed arrears of rent and when the alleged arrears of rent are in dispute, the Court has no jurisdiction to invoke Rule 1 to give direction to the defendant-tenant to deposit the alleged arrears of rent under that rule and refuse to receive written statement filed by the defendant. When there are no undisputed arrears of rent and when the alleged arrears of rent are in dispute, the Court has no jurisdiction to invoke Rule 1 to give direction to the defendant-tenant to deposit the alleged arrears of rent under that rule and refuse to receive written statement filed by the defendant. In case the defendant disputes existence of arrears, of rent then it follows that the trial Court has no other go except to receive written statement filed by the tenant. After written statement is filed by the defendant-tenant, because of non-applicability of Rule 1 at that stage, it is open to the plaintiff to file petition under Rule 2 to strike off defence of the defendant. In such an event, it is for the trial Court to make an enquiry and to pass an order after giving opportunity to both the parties, and to find whether the defendant is under an obligation to deposit the arrears of rent claimed by the plaintiff. In case the defendant fails to comply with the said order passed by the trial Court under Rule 2 within the specified date, then defence of the defendant is liable to be struck off. It follows from the above discussion that the Court is not justified in refusing to receive written statement when the arrears of rent are in dispute. 8. In the case on hand, the 1st defendant/petitioner herein disputes continuation of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. According to the 1st defendant, he vacated the suit premisis on 30.12.1995 and upto that time he paid rents to the 4th defendant who is stated to have purchased the suit property from the plaintiff as per the instructions given to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff himself. 1st defendant is a partnership firm, whereas the 3rd defendant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. According to the 1st defendant, the 3rd defendant obtained possession of the suit premisis from the 4th defendant who purchased the suit property from power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. In the light of the above pleading of the 1st defendant, it is not a case of simple dispute on arrears of rent. According to the 1st defendant, the 3rd defendant obtained possession of the suit premisis from the 4th defendant who purchased the suit property from power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. In the light of the above pleading of the 1st defendant, it is not a case of simple dispute on arrears of rent. The dispute in the suit is not only in respect of existence of arrears of rent due to the plaintiff from the 1st defendant, but also a dispute relating to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in respect of the suit premisis together with a dispute relating to ownership of the suit premisis between the plaintiff and the 4th defendant. There is also dispute as to who is the present tenant of the suit premisis, whether it is the 1st defendant firm or the 3rd defendant-company. 9. Assuming for the sake of argument that the trial Court can pass an order under Order XV-A Rule 1 or Rule 2 CPC, the plaintiff/respondent is not going to succeed in getting a decree for possession in spite of striking off defence of the 1st/defendant, because the 3rd defendant who is presently in possession of the suit property is on record and the plaintiff prayed for eviction of the 3rd defendant also from the suit premisis. There is no prayer in any petition under Order XV-A CPC for deposit of rents or arrears of rents as against the 3rd defendant with whom admittedly the plaintiff has no jural relationship as his tenant for the suit premisis. Since there is dispute of continuation of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and since there is dispute as to liability of the 1st defendant to pay arrears and also dispute as to arrears of rent payable by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff for the suit premisis, the plaintiff is not entitled to invoke either Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order XV-A CPC in this case. This Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law in the light of the above factual controversies which are liable to be determined after full trial wherein both the parties will lead their oral and documentary evidence. 10. This Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law in the light of the above factual controversies which are liable to be determined after full trial wherein both the parties will lead their oral and documentary evidence. 10. In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside impugned order passed by the trial Court.