Judgment : Heard Sri Narayan Laxman Rao, the learned counsel for petitioner/defendant and Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. 2. The point in this defendant’s revision is whether an order passed by the trial court under Order XV-A (A.P. Amendment) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, treating him as the tenant of the plaintiff in a suit for eviction and directing him to deposit arrears of rents and future rents can be said to be valid and proper. 3. The point arises in the following circumstances. Hereinafterwards, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The suit O.S.No.2386 of 2010 on the file of the court of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (trial court) was filed for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits on the plea that the defendant is tenant of the plaintiff in the suit property (a flat) and he committed default in payment of rents and on other grounds. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 24.11.2006 from its previous owners Rishi Swaroop and unal Swaroop. He also says that by the date of his purchase the defendant was already a tenant in the suit property under the previous owners and that after he purchased it he became the owner of the property by operation of law and the defendant became his tenant. The grounds of eviction are mentioned in the plaint and it is not necessary to go into the same here. 5. The plaintiff pending the suit, filed an application i.e., I.A.No.1443 of 2010 in the said suit under Order XV-A pleading that the defendant being his tenant did not pay the rents and claimed that the defendant is bound to pay rent to him and therefore he should be directed to deposit a sum of Rs.7,01,200/- towards past rents from 01.10.2007 to 30.09.2010 and future mesne profits. The break up is given in the petition. 6. The defendant contested the above application on various grounds. The break up is given in the petition. 6. The defendant contested the above application on various grounds. His contention is that he is not the tenant of the plaintiff and he is the tenant of the previous owner and the previous owners Rishi Swaroop and Kunal Swaroop executed an agreement of sale dated 12.07.2006 in his favour for the suit property and took advances from him, but they committed breach of the agreement and sold the property to the plaintiff. He says that he also filed a suit i.e., O.S.No.79 of 2010 for specific performance of the said agreement of sale and for a direction that plaintiff’s sale deed is not binding on him against the previous owners and the present plaintiff and that suit is pending in the court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and consequently he cannot be treated as a tenant of the plaintiff. His further plea is that Order XV-A is not applicable in this case as there is no landlord-tenant relationship between him and the plaintiff. He also pleaded that the rents claimed are excessive. 7. The trial court considered the respective cases of both parties and concluded in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendant by its order dated 15.02.2012 to pay a sum of Rs.7,01,200/- towards arrears of rent @ Rs.18,700/- per month from 01.10.2007 to 30.09.2010 and Rs.19,700/- per month from 01.10.2010 to 29.02.2012 within sixty days from the date of its order and to continue to deposit future rents as indicated in its order. It is questioning this order, the defendant has come up with this revision. 8. It is now well settled that Order XV-A CPC applies only when the tenancy is admitted or where the circumstances of the case are such that they positively show that the plaintiff can be said to have become the owner/landlord of the property and the defendant can be said to have become his tenant by operation of law also. Equally the rent amount should also be undisputed and in any event it must be easily ascertainable where any dispute is raised regarding the quantum of rent. 9. The learned counsel for the defendant relied upon a decision of this court given in K.Zakria Shaik v K.Saleem Basha ( 2011 (4) ALD 757 ). Equally the rent amount should also be undisputed and in any event it must be easily ascertainable where any dispute is raised regarding the quantum of rent. 9. The learned counsel for the defendant relied upon a decision of this court given in K.Zakria Shaik v K.Saleem Basha ( 2011 (4) ALD 757 ). This decision is an authority for the proposition that an order for deposit of rents under Order XV-A can be made only when the amount of rent is also admitted but not when there is a serious dispute regarding the amount or quantum of rent. There cannot be any dispute about this proposition. Keeping in view the above criteria, the point is now proposed to be decided. 10. From the pleadings of both parties in the present application, it is clear that Rishi Swaroop and Kunal Swaroop were the earlier owners of the suit property. While the defendant says that he obtained the agreement of sale dated 12.07.2006 from them the plaintiff is claiming title to the suit property under the subsequent registered sale deed dated 24.11.2006 which he obtained from them. 11. Thus the defendant stands in the position of a prior agreement holder only without any title, whereas the plaintiff stands in the position of a subsequent purchaser having acquired title through his sale deed. Whether the previous owners are bound by the agreement of sale dated 12.07.2006 relied upon by the defendant and the plaintiff is also bound by the same under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and whether the defendant is entitled to specific performance of his agreement of sale are all questions which have to be decided by the court in which the defendant’s suit O.S.No.79 of 2010 is pending. They cannot be gone into here. What should be noted is that the defendant has admitted the aforesaid plaintiff’s sale deed also in the said suit. 12. Thus by virtue of the plaintiff’s sale deed dated 24.11.2006 he must be held to have become subsequent owner/landlord of the suit property subject of course to the result of the defendant’s suit O.S.No.79 of 2010. This would be the position by reason of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act which says that a transferee of the leased out property from the lessors stands in the position of a lessor vis-à-vis the tenant therein. This would be the position by reason of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act which says that a transferee of the leased out property from the lessors stands in the position of a lessor vis-à-vis the tenant therein. In other words as between the plaintiff and the defendant the plaintiff has to be treated as landlord of the suit property subject to the adjudication of their right in O.S.No.79 of 2010. 13. In the above fact situation, it follows that the plaintiff is entitled to bring the suit for eviction of the defendant and also claim arrears of rent or their deposit by the defendant as contemplated under Order XV-A CPC as that becomes applicable. Nothing is placed on record to show that there is any order of any competent court (between the parties) under which the plaintiff is precluded from filing this suit or this application under Order XV-A CPC demanding deposit of rents. 14. It may be noted that if a plaintiff who has become landlord of a premises by operation of law is non-suited in a rent deposit application under Order XV-A CPC in a suit like this on the ground that the defendant/tenant’s suit for specific performance either against previous owners of the property or the present plaintiff/landlord is pending then that would result in encouraging unscrupulous tenants to harass the landlords even by filing frivolous suits. In my opinion, the pendency of such a suit for specific performance brought by the tenant cannot be treated as a sufficient cause or ground to dismiss the application under Order XV-A of the landlord on the ground that the tenancy itself is disputed seriously. Instead the better course would be to direct the parties that each of them would be liable to the other according to the result of such specific performance suit of the tenant and that each of them can work out their remedies against the other basing upon the relief granted in such suit. In view of this and for the aforesaid reasons, it follows that the defendant is liable to deposit in principle the arrears of admitted rents. Of course whether there are any grounds or not for eviction have to be decided in the suit itself. 15. That takes me to the question as to what amounts can be said to be admitted rents which are required to be deposited. Of course whether there are any grounds or not for eviction have to be decided in the suit itself. 15. That takes me to the question as to what amounts can be said to be admitted rents which are required to be deposited. So far as this question is concerned, it may be noted that the impugned order of the trial court would show that the plaintiff has relied upon an unregistered lease deed dated 01.06.2005 under which the defendant initially agreed to pay Rs.17,000/- per month towards rent to previous owners. It appears that there are some clauses in that lease deed which show that rent was agreed to be periodically enhanced. Whether those clauses are justified or not regarding periodical enhancement when the ownership of the suit property has now changed have to be decided in the suit as the defendant disputed the said clauses also. 16. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the only admitted rent of Rs.17,000/- per month which was first agreed to be paid by the defendant under the lease deed to previous owners can be directed to be deposited by the defendant from 01.10.2007 (date mentioned by plaintiff) till today and continue to deposit future rents at the same rates till the disposal of the suit or until further orders which may be passed by the trial court. 17. The previous amounts if any already admittedly paid or deposited shall be adjusted against the amounts which are now to be deposited. The plaintiff is at liberty to apply before the trial court for withdrawal of the said amounts as contemplated under Order XV-A. 18. Thus for the aforesaid reasons, the point is decided in favour of the plaintiff and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of modifying the trial court order regarding the amounts to be deposited towards rents and withdrawals as indicated above. It goes without saying that both parties shall be, as mentioned, bound by the final adjudication of the suit O.S.No.79 of 2010 of the defendant and the reliefs granted with regard to present amounts. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.