ORDER : CRP No.868 of 2022 is filed by defendant No.1 against order date 22.03.2022 in I.A.No.1012 of 2016 in O.S.No.118 of 2012 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2. CRP No.577 of 2022 is filed by defendant No.1 (as per unamended cause title) aggrieved by the action in not receiving petition filed under Section 151 of CPC to reopen I.A.No.1012 of 2016 in O.S.No.118 of 2012 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein being plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.118 of 2012 against petitioner/defendant No.1 and other respondents/defendants seeking their eviction from the plaint schedule premises and further to direct the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- towards use and unauthorized occupation of the suit schedule premises and also to direct the defendants to pay arrears of rents from 01.04.2007. 4. Originally the suit was filed against Aditya Motors represented by P.D. Prasad. Later, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.237 of 2018 seeking amendment of defendant No.1 and the same was allowed by order dated 28.03.2018. By virtue of amendment, defendant No.1 was described as Pilli Durga Prasad, S/o Varahala Rao, Rep. of Aditya Motors. 5. In the plaint, it was contended that plaintiffs are owners of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 approached plaintiff No.1 with a request to lease out the suit schedule property. Accordingly, on 13.04.2005, defendant No.1 entered into a lease agreement with plaintiff No.1 and the same was registered as document No.5120 of 2005. Without the consent of plaintiffs, defendant No.1 inducted defendant No.2 into the suit schedule premises and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are Directors of defendant No.2 company. Defendant No.1 never acted as per the agreement. Defendant No.1 is continuing in the premises even after lapse of the agreement and in fact, violated conditions of the lease agreement. As per clause 11 of the lease agreement soon after completion of the lease period, defendant No.1 agreed to vacate the premises and deliver physical possession. The other condition is that defendant No.1 agreed to increase the rent by 10% after lapse of first two years, but it did not do so. Defendants have no right over the suit schedule premises. On 16.12.2011 a quit notice was issued by the plaintiffs. Defendants, though acknowledged the notice, did not vacate the premises. With these averments, in brief, suit was filed for the reliefs stated supra. 6. Defendants have no right over the suit schedule premises. On 16.12.2011 a quit notice was issued by the plaintiffs. Defendants, though acknowledged the notice, did not vacate the premises. With these averments, in brief, suit was filed for the reliefs stated supra. 6. Pending the suit, plaintiffs filed I.A.No.611 of 2013 under Order XV-A and Section 151 of CPC to direct the defendants to deposit admitted rent and damages into the Court and to strike off defence of the respondents in the event of their non-deposit of admitted arrears of rent and damages. Later the I.A. was renumbered as I.A.No.1012 of 2016. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that defendants took the suit schedule premises on lease on 13.04.2005 on a monthly rent of Rs.41,500/-. They agreed to enhance the rent at the rate of 10% on the existing rent for every two years and also agreed to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property on 31.03.2010. Defendants paid admitted rent till 31.03.2010 without paying the enhanced rent as per lease deed. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 were set ex parte and defendant No.3 is contesting the suit by filing written statement without depositing arrears of admitted rent and damages for their unauthorized use and occupation. Hence, the application was filed. 8. Defendant No.3 filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter, it was contended that plaintiffs made discussions with defendant No.1-Proprietor and agreed to let out suit schedule premises for nine years with renewal of further period of nine years. As per the understanding plaintiff No.1, on behalf of plaintiff No.2 gave letter of offer, dated 28.01.2005 signed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of Proprietor of defendant No.1. After several sittings, parties came to understanding that defendant No.2 shall pay Rs.6,00,000/- as advance and period of lease is nine years with renewal of further nine years. Rent fixed is Rs.41,500/- payable by defendant No.2 and enhancement is by 10% after completion of five years. Defendant No.2 also be treated as tenant for all purposes. Plaintiffs specifically agreed that either defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 or their associates can do business in the suit schedule premises. Accordingly, the lease deed was executed on 13.05.2005 and the same was registered. Defendant No.2 paid Rs.3,00,000/- each to plaintiff No.1 through pay order Nos.690442 and 690443 dated 14.02.2005. Defendant No.2 also be treated as tenant for all purposes. Plaintiffs specifically agreed that either defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 or their associates can do business in the suit schedule premises. Accordingly, the lease deed was executed on 13.05.2005 and the same was registered. Defendant No.2 paid Rs.3,00,000/- each to plaintiff No.1 through pay order Nos.690442 and 690443 dated 14.02.2005. From the beginning defendant No.3 has been paying rents to plaintiff No.1 through cheques. Plaintiff No.1 has been encashing the same without any objection. Defendant Nos.1 and 2, before completion of five years period, in the first week of December, 2009 itself sent registered letter to plaintiff No.1 to grant further lease in the premises in terms of renewal clause in the registered lease deed. However, plaintiffs neither sent reply nor executed lease deed and stopped receiving rents from 01.04.2010 by returning cheques tendered by them. Suit is not maintainable. Quit notice is pre-matured one. Defendant No.1 is a partnership firm. Defendant No.2 has no objection to pay the rents provided plaintiffs give up their false contention and accept defendant No.2 as tenant. Eventually prayed to dismiss the application. 9. Initially defendant No.1 was set ex parte in I.A. Later, exparte order was set aside. Defendant No.1 filed counter and contended that defendant No.2 has been doing business in the suit schedule premises and has been paying rent to the plaintiffs. The representative of defendant No.2, Madhavi, D/o Gali Banerjee is in no way concerned with the company. Defendant No.1 never did business in the suit schedule premises and never paid rents. Cause title to the petition is not correct and the amendments made in the plaint were not carried out in the petition. Eventually prayed to dismiss the petition. 10. By order dated 22.03.2022, trial Court allowed the application and directed defendants to deposit an amount of Rs.96,04,243/- towards arrears of rent of suit schedule premises from 01.04.2010 to 15.12.2021 and previous arrears/rent within fifteen days from the date of said order, failing which, defence of the defendants is deemed to be struck off. Plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the amount after depositing under acknowledgment without furnishing any security. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 filed CRP 868 of 2022. 11. Defendant No.1 filed petition under Section 151 of CPC to reopen I.A.No.1012 of 2016, on 22.03.2022 i.e. on the date when order was pronounced in I.A.No.1012 of 2016. Plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the amount after depositing under acknowledgment without furnishing any security. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 filed CRP 868 of 2022. 11. Defendant No.1 filed petition under Section 151 of CPC to reopen I.A.No.1012 of 2016, on 22.03.2022 i.e. on the date when order was pronounced in I.A.No.1012 of 2016. Complaining non receiving of the same, CRP No.577 of 2022 is filed. 12. Heard Sri S.S. Prasad, learned counsel representing Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 and Smt. V. Dyumani, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs. Though Sri S. Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4/defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed vakalat, no arguments were advanced. 13. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that there is no jural relationship between the parties since the lease was terminated by issuing quit notice. He would also submit that petitioner/defendant No.1 is not tenant and defendant No.2 is claiming status of tenant of the plaintiffs. Defendants cannot be directed to pay the arrears of rent since lease was terminated by issuing quit notice and application under Order XV-A does not lie. He would submit that the Court below did not give finding regarding jural relationship while allowing the application. He would submit that acceptance of rent after quit notice would amount to waiver. 14. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Court refused to receive petition filed by defendant No.1 to reopen I.A.No.1012 of 2016. He would submit that any I.A. filed must be numbered and it needs to be decided after inviting counter from the respondents. Hence, prayed to allow the revisions. 15. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs would contend that initially, the suit was filed against Aditya Motors, represented by P.D. Prasad. Later plaintiffs came to know that Pilli Durga Prasad was representing M/s. Aditya Motors and hence, got the cause title amended by filing I.A.No.237 of 2018. She submits that defendant No.1 entered into a lease agreement with plaintiffs and the same was registered on 13.04.2005 and defendant No.1 inducted defendant No.2 without permission of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed in the year, 2012 and immediately I.A.No.611 of 2013 was filed under Order XV-A of CPC. However, the same was renumbered as I.A.No.1012 of 2016. She would submit that as per the lease deed, rent will be enhanced for every two years. The suit was filed in the year, 2012 and immediately I.A.No.611 of 2013 was filed under Order XV-A of CPC. However, the same was renumbered as I.A.No.1012 of 2016. She would submit that as per the lease deed, rent will be enhanced for every two years. She further submits that since defendants are protracting the proceedings, plaintiffs filed two civil revision petitions seeking expedite disposal of the suit. She submits that initially defendant No.1 remained exparte in the interlocutory application. Later filed petition to set aside ex parte order and to receive counter. They were allowed. Respondent No.1 filed counter on 07.03.2022. After hearing arguments and reply to arguments, I.A.No.1012 of 2016 was reserved for orders. After issuing notice to learned counsel and on affixing notice in the notice board, order was pronounced on 22.03.2022. She submits that on the date of pronouncement of order, defendant No.1 filed a petition to reopen I.A.No.1012 of 2016. Thus, prayed to dismiss the revisions. 16. The points for consideration are: (1) Whether directing defendants to deposit arrears of rent from 01.04.2010 to 15.12.2021 is in accordance with Order XV-A of CPC? (2) Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering I.A.No.1012 of 2016? 17. Initially, suit O.S.No.118 of 2012 was filed on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur, describing defendant No.1 as Aditya Motors represented by P.D. Prasad. However, later by filing I.A.No.237 of 2018, plaintiffs sought for amendment of defendant No.1. Plaintiffs also filed other applications seeking amendments and they were allowed. Aggrieved by the orders, defendant No.1 filed five civil revision petitions before this Court. CRP No.4302 of 2018 was filed against order in I.A.No.237 of 2018. Learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed said revisions by common order, dated 12.06.2019 by observing as under: “… The law is well settled that a proprietary concern is not legal entity and when an individual carries on business in a name or style other than his own name, he cannot sue in the trading name. …” 18. Learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed said revisions by common order, dated 12.06.2019 by observing as under: “… The law is well settled that a proprietary concern is not legal entity and when an individual carries on business in a name or style other than his own name, he cannot sue in the trading name. …” 18. Learned Single Judge placed reliance on Shankar Finance and Investments vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR 2009 SC 422 and Bhagawati Vanaspati Traders v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, AIR 2015 SC 901 and concluded as follows: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances and legal position obtaining, this Court finds that the amendment being sought for by the plaintiffs herein insofar as the description of the 1st defendant can be permitted in the interests of justice.” 19. Pursuant to dismissal of CRPs, as seen from the docket proceedings, defendant No.1 filed a petition to set aside ex parte order passed in I.A.No.1012 of 2016 and later filed counter. After hearing learned counsel, I.A. was reserved for orders. On 22.03.2022, by issuing notice to the learned counsel and affixing notice on the notice board, order was pronounced. 20. The contention of learned Senior Counsel that by virtue of the amendment of cause title of defendant No.1, suit itself is to be dismissed, may not stand legal scrutiny by virtue of the order in CRP No.4203 of 2018. This Court, in fact, is not going into those aspects in this application under Order XV-A of CPC. 21. The other contention of learned Senior Counsel that by issuing legal notice, lease was terminated and hence, Court cannot order deposit of admitted rents under Order XV-A, also falls to ground. This court is not persuaded by the said argument of the learned senior counsel. Mere acceptance of rents after issuance of legal notice (quit notice), does not amount to waiver. 22. In Shanti Prasad Devi and Anr. Vs. Shankar Mahto and Ors., 2005 (5) SCC 543 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that on expiry of period of lease, mere acceptance of rent for the subsequent months in which the lessee continued to occupy the lease premises cannot be said to be a conduct signifying “assent” to the continuance of the lease even after expiry of lease period. 23. 23. As per the lease deed, dated 13.04.2005, rent shall be increased by 10% for every two years on the existing rent. 24. As stated supra, defendant No.1 was set ex parte. Defendant No.3 filed written statement and is contesting the suit. As per proceedings, issues were framed on 03.07.2013. PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Defendant No.2 filed suit O.S.No.460 of 2012 on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge against APCPDCL for mandatory injunction and other reliefs. Said suit was also transferred to learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur to be tried along with O.S.No.118 of 2012 and the same was renumbered as O.S.No. 16 of 2016. 25. Plaintiffs filed CRP No.1240 of 2017 seeking expedite disposal of suit and the same was disposed of on 10.03.2017. Plaintiffs again filed I.A.No.369 of 2018 and said CRP was disposed of on 25.01.2018 directing lower court to dispose of the suit within two months. 26. In the first instance, on 14.02.2022 I.A. 1012 of 2016 was reserved for orders. Defendant No.1/petitioner filed I.A.Nos.138 to 140 of 2022 to reopen the petition, to set aside ex parte order, to receive counter. They were allowed. I.A.No.1012 of 2016 was posted to 07.03.2022. On 07.03.2022 after hearing arguments, I.A. was reserved, for orders. However, the suit was posted to 25.03.2022. After issuing notice to the Advocates and affixing notice on notice board, order was pronounced on 22.03.2022. 27. Defendant No.2 (respondent No.3 herein) filed counter and pleaded that defendant No.2 is also tenant of premises though lease deed was executed in favour of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 also pleaded no objection to pay rents provided plaintiffs have to give up their false contention and accept defendant No.2 as tenant. 28. Trial Court at para No.13 of the order, recorded finding and discussed about calculation memo filed by defendant No.2. As seen from the order of the trial Court, defendant No.2 filed memo showing the rents to be paid as Rs.59,34,500/-. Defendant No.2 claims to have made certain payments and after deductions net arrears of rent to be paid is Rs.14,88,672/-. Defendant No.2 intended to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- under protest. 29. Monthly rent, as per the lease agreement dated 13.04.2005 is Rs.41,500/- with a clause of enhancement of rent by 10% for every two years. Defendant No.2 claims to have made certain payments and after deductions net arrears of rent to be paid is Rs.14,88,672/-. Defendant No.2 intended to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- under protest. 29. Monthly rent, as per the lease agreement dated 13.04.2005 is Rs.41,500/- with a clause of enhancement of rent by 10% for every two years. Though plaintiff No.1, in I.A.1012 of 2016 sought for deposit of damages also, trial Court ordered for arrears of rent from 01.04.2010 to 15.12.2021 and previous rent due as per calculation memo. Calculation of arrears of rent was mentioned at para No.11 of the order of the trial Court. Going by the counter of defendant No.2 (respondent No.3 herein), rent is to be paid from 01.04.2010 onwards. The calculation memo filed by the plaintiffs would indicate enhancement of rent as per lease deed. 30. The tabular statement extracted in the order makes it clear that plaintiffs prepared the same as per the lease agreement by enhancing the rent at 10%. The period is from 01.04.2010 to 15.12.2021. Trial Court on careful consideration, by reasoned order allowed the application. Whether the 1st defendant is tenant or not will be decided after full-fledged trial. Out of four defendants one defendant has been contesting the suit by filing written statement as stated supra. So far as D1 is concerned, after the common order in revision, I.A. was filed to set aside the exparte order etc., After, hearing R1/revision petitioner, order under challenge was passed. 31. It is a very sorry situation that persons in occupation of the premises, be it, D1 or D2 or other defendants, failed to pay the rent for 12 years. Whatever the reason, I.A. filed in the year 2013 was renumbered in 2016, and order was passed in the year 2022. Order XV-A deals with rent admitted and arrears of rent. It is also apt to refer to the legal maxim ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. Whenever an application is filed under Order XV-A CPC, the Court shall deal with the applications as expeditiously as possible. Delay in deciding the application will result hardship to either of the parties. 32. Though the plaintiffs/petitioners prayed for damages and interest, the trial court confined its order only to rents as calculated by plaintiff basing on registered lease deed. 33. Delay in deciding the application will result hardship to either of the parties. 32. Though the plaintiffs/petitioners prayed for damages and interest, the trial court confined its order only to rents as calculated by plaintiff basing on registered lease deed. 33. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order under revision, which warrants interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 34. Coming to CRP No.577 of 2022, revision petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the Court below in not accepting the I.A. filed to reopen I.A.No.1012 of 2016. It is pertinent to mention here that D1, after amendment of cause title, filed I.A. as per unamended cause title. However, the same was numbered by registry. 35. The grievance of defendant No.1/revision petitioner is that he filed IA under Section 151 of CPC to reopen I.A.No.1012 of 2016. However, the same was returned. As can be seen from the order, Lower Court pronounced orders in I.A.No.1012 of 2016 on 22.03.2022. As observed supra, as per docket proceedings, on 14.02.2022, I.A. 1012 of 2016 was reserved for orders. At that stage, defendant No.1/petitioner filed I.A.Nos.138 to 140 of 2022 to reopen the petition, to set aside ex parte order, to receive counter and they were allowed. Thereafter, after hearing arguments, I.A.No.1012 of 2016 was reserved for orders and suit was posted to 25.03.2022. Since Trial Court passed order in I.A.No.1012 of 2016, there are no merits in CRP No.577 of 2022. Moreover, as observed supra, CRP No.577 of 2022 filed by defendant No.1 with unamended cause title, itself is not maintainable. 36. In view of the above discussion, both the revisions are liable to be dismissed. 37. This Court on 06.05.2022 initially granted interim suspension in CRP No.868 of 2022 and later by order dated 08.07.2022 directed revision petitioner to deposit 25%. The amount was deposited by revision petitioner. Since revision petitioner deposited 25% of the amount, petitioner is granted time to deposit the remaining amount within fifteen days from today. Revision petitioner or other defendants shall continue to deposit rent every month, as ordered by Trial Court, without any default. If the revision petitioner fails to deposit the remaining amount within fifteen days, as indicated supra, order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the trial Court comes into operation. 38. With the above direction CRP No.868 of 2022 is dismissed. 39. Revision petitioner or other defendants shall continue to deposit rent every month, as ordered by Trial Court, without any default. If the revision petitioner fails to deposit the remaining amount within fifteen days, as indicated supra, order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the trial Court comes into operation. 38. With the above direction CRP No.868 of 2022 is dismissed. 39. In view of the order passed in CRP No.868 of 2022, CRP No.577 of 2022 is dismissed. No costs. 40. Since the suit is of the year 2012, trial Court shall expedite the disposal of the suit keeping in view the circular issued by this Court vide R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/2022, dated 23.11.2022 strictly in accordance with law. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.