ORDER : AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI, J. 1. This revision, filed by the defendant in as. No. 574 of 2018 on the file of the Court of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, challenges the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the said Court in I.A. No. 874 of 2018, filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The respondent herein instituted the said suit for the following reliefs: "(a) For eviction of the defendant, its men and agents from the Plaint 'B' Schedule property and for recovery of vacant possession thereof. (b) For recovery of Rs. 15,75,000/- being arrears of rents from 01.05.2018 to 30.11.2018. (c) For future damages for use and occupation from the date of suit till eviction at such rate as the Honourable Court deems reasonable on the basis of rental values prevailing in that area, (d) For a permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant and its men and agents from causing obstruction to the ingress and egress of the Plaintiff and their men from going to the penthouse and terrace by using the lift and staircase. (e) For costs and such other relief/reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case." 3. Along with the said suit, respondent herein filed the present I.A. No. 874 of 2018 under Order Order of C.P.C. for a direction to the defendant-petitioner herein to pay Rs. 22,47,500/- towards arrears of rent for the period from 01.05.2018 to 30.11.2018 and to pay continuously @ Rs. 3,75,000/- per month plus GST of 18%. Resisting the said I.A. and denying the quantum of rent payable, the defendant-petitioner herein filed a counter. The learned Additional District Judge, by way of the impugned order, allowed I.A. No. 874 of 2018 and directed the defendant-petitioner herein to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 22,47,500/- after deducting 20 days' rent of May, 2018 with a condition that in the event of failure to do so, defence would be struck-off. 4. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent herein, apart from perusing the material available on record. 6. 4. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent herein, apart from perusing the material available on record. 6. Submissions/contentions of Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner: (1) Impugned order is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order XV-A of C.P.C. (2) Had the contents of the supporting affidavit and the evidence adduced by the petitioner herein before the Court below been considered by the Court below from proper perspective, the questioned order would not have emanated. (3) The Court below arrived at the conclusions as to the quantum of rent on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and the said conclusions are completely bereft of any foundation and basis and are completely on the basis of the pleadings of the plaintiff without being supported by any valid documentary evidence. (4) The Court below grossly erred in placing reliance on the lease deed, pertaining to the earlier lease and the same cannot be the basis for determining the dispute as regards the quantum of rent between the petitioner and the respondent in the instant case. (5) Ex. P.4 agreement of lease dated 28.04.2018, sought to be pressed into service by the plaintiff is not admissible in evidence for want of registration and stamp duty. 7. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned counsel takes the support of the following judgments: (1) Vasavi Boys Hostel and Mess v. K. Satya Prasad 2013 (1) ALT 401 . (2) A. Yeshoda v. Digamber Rao Surve 2005 (2) ALT 355 . (3) K. Ramamoorthi v. C. Surendranatha Reddy 2012 (6) ALT 786 . 8. Submissions/contentions of Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent: (1) There is no error nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned order, as such, the same is not amenable for judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (2) The learned Judge, after holding summary enquiry strictly in accordance with Order XV-A of C.P.C., passed the impugned order as such, no interference of this Court is warranted. (3) Even if Ex. (2) The learned Judge, after holding summary enquiry strictly in accordance with Order XV-A of C.P.C., passed the impugned order as such, no interference of this Court is warranted. (3) Even if Ex. P.4 is excluded from the summary enquiry under Order XV-A of C.P.C., there is enough material on record to support the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order. (4) Since the earlier lessee surrendered the lease only on 23.03.2018, Ex. P.4 dated 28.04.2018 could not be registered. 9. To bolster his submissions and contentions, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of M.B. Chander and others v. M/s. Balakrishna Rao Charitable Trust 2016 (6) ALT 1 : 2016 (6) SCJ Online (AP) 328. 10. In the above background, now the issues which this Court is called upon to adjudicate in this Revision are: (1) Whether the order impugned is in accordance with the provisions of Order XV-A of C.P.C.? (2) Whether the questioned order warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 11. In order to resolve the issues involved in this C.R.P., it would be appropriate and apposite to refer to Order XV-A of C.P.C., which reads as under: "Order XV-A (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, of licence fee, known with whatever description, the defendant, while filling 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 reason 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 licence 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." 12. The object of the above provision of law obviously is to safeguard the interest of the landlord pending suit. The enquiry which needs to be undertaken under this Order is akin to the enquiry under Section 11 of the Rent Control Act. The only difference is Section 11 obligates the tenant to file an application to deposit, whereas Order XV-A enables the landlord to move such an application. Under Order XV-A of C.P.C., the Court, before which an application is filed, is required to conduct enquiry in a summary manner and needs to arrive at a reasonable and rational conclusion as to the quantum of rent. In the instant case, the issue is whether the learned Judge adhered to such course of action or not. 13. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the jural relationship between the respondent and the petitioner herein as the landlord and tenant. In the present case, there are two lease deeds, pertaining to subject premises, that are sought to be pressed into service and relied upon by the landlord and tenant and both are dated 28.04.2018. The plaintiff filed them before the Court below as Exs. P.4 and P.18. According to the plaintiff, Ex. P.4 was entered into between the plaintiff and the tenant (defendant), represented by its Branch Manager, and according to which, the period of lease being three years and the rent payable is Rs. 3,75,000/- per month from May, 2018 to April, 2018; Rs. 4,03,125/- from May, 2019 to April, 2020; and Rs. 4,33,360/- from May, 2020 to April, 2021. As per Ex. P.18 dated 28.04.2018, said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, represented by its Managing Director, the period of lease period being 15 years and rent payable is Rs. 4,03,125/- from May, 2019 to April, 2020; and Rs. 4,33,360/- from May, 2020 to April, 2021. As per Ex. P.18 dated 28.04.2018, said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, represented by its Managing Director, the period of lease period being 15 years and rent payable is Rs. 1,50,000/- per month with 10% hike for every three years. Defendant is relying upon Ex. P.18. 14. According to the plaintiff, Ex. P.18 is a rank forgery and when Ex. P.4 and Ex. P.18 were sent to Truth Labs to find out genuineness of Ex. P.18, they found the signature on Ex. P.18 as traced forgery vide Ex. P.15 opinion. But at this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to go into the said aspect and the same needs to be verified and adjudicated in the main suit. 15. Apart from Ex. P.4 dated 28.04.2018, the plaintiff also filed Exs. P.19 and P.20. Ex. P. 19 is the registered agreement of lease bearing Doc. No. 855/2011 dated 25.03.2011 executed by the plaintiff in favour of M/s. Viswarupa Automobiles (P) Limited for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 01.04.2011. According to clause-15 of Ex. P. 19, the particulars of rent are as follows: "The rent particulars are mentioned below with an increase of 5% per annum. April 2011 to March 2012 Rs.2,10,000/- p.m. i.e. Rs.25,20,000/-P.A. April 2012 to March 2013 Rs.2,20,500/- p.m. i.e. Rs.26,46,000/-P.A. April 2013 to March 2014 Rs.2,31,525/- p.m. i.e. Rs.27,78,300/-P.A. April 2014 to March 2015 Rs.2,43,100/- p.m. i.e. Rs.29,17,200/-P.A. April 2015 to March 2016 Rs.2,55,255/- p.m. i.e. Rs.30,63,060/-P.A. 16. Ex. P.20 dated 23.05.2018 is also a registered document, which shows the continuation of lease covered by Ex. P.19 till 23.05.2018 under a registered lease deed. It is very much evident from a reading of the impugned order that obviously taking into consideration, the quantum of lease amount mentioned in the said Ex. P.19 registered lease agreement, the learned Judge arrived at a conclusion as regards the amounts payable as per the provisions of Order XV-A of C.P.C. Admittedly, the schedule property is situated within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and it is a valuable property. It is very much clear from a reading of the impugned order that the learned Judge recorded valid and convincing reasons. It is very much clear from a reading of the impugned order that the learned Judge recorded valid and convincing reasons. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord in M.B. Chander's case 2016 (6) ALT 1 : 2016 (6) SCJ Online (AP) 328 (supra). In the said decision, this Court while observing parity in the manner of enquiry between Section 11 of the Rent Control Act and Order XV-A of C.P.C., at paragraph No. 36, laid down the following guidelines for exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: "(a) When the inferior court assumes jurisdiction erroneously in excess of power. (b) When refused to exercise jurisdiction. (c) When found an error of law apparent on the face of record. (d) Violated principles of natural justice. (e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion. (f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material. (g) A patent or flagrant error in procedure. (h) Order resulting in manifest injustice. (i) Error both on facts and law or even otherwise." 17. Learned Judge while taking note of the lease amounts paid by the earlier lessee categorically recorded a finding that the question of giving for Rs. 1,50,000/-, i.e., far below half of the earlier rent, would not arise and no ordinary prudent man would let out the premises for lower rent than the previous years. 18. In the above referred judgment, this Court at paragraph No. 39, relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and another [ AIR 1954 SC 215 ], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that "even if it be possible to take a view different from the one which has appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal on the interpretation of sale deed, we do not think, in exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, we have any power to interfere with the conclusions of the Tribunal". In the instant case also, having regard to the reasons recorded by the Court below, this Court does not find any valid reason to meddle with the well-articulated and well-reasoned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. In the instant case also, having regard to the reasons recorded by the Court below, this Court does not find any valid reason to meddle with the well-articulated and well-reasoned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.