ORDER : 1. Plaintiff No.1 in the suit filed above revision against order, dated 03.03.2022 in O.S.No.279 of 2021 on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. 2. The averments, in brief, in the plaint are that defendant No.1 firm is the owner of property bearing door No.13-8-187 admeasuring 832 square yards of site along with ground, first, second and third floors. Defendant No.1 firm leased out first, second and third floors along with steps on the ground floor as also reception counter along with lavatories and bathrooms and current connections to the plaintiffs, on 27.05.2015 for a period of six years from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2021. Rent for three years i.e. from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2021 is Rs.60,000/- and from 01.04.2023 onwards, Rs.78,000/- per month. The rent is payable on the fifth of every succeeding month. Plaintiffs took plaint schedule property on lease and have been running Sri Tirumala Hotel Sarovar Lodge. Plaintiffs paid Rs.10,00,000/- to defendant No.1 as refundable advance amount without interest at the time of taking property on lease. Defendants represented that, plaintiffs can continue as lessees even after expiry of lease with same terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed. In the lease deed, a condition was also incorporated regarding damages. Plaintiffs invested huge amounts. Lease deed dated 27.05.2015 was registered as document No.5301 of 2015. Plaintiffs have been regularly paying rent through NEFT/RTGS and the present rent payable is Rs.78,000/- per month including TDS. Defendants violated their assurance to continue plaintiffs as tenants and intended to evict plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. Plaintiffs issued registered legal notice on 19.11.2020 requesting defendants to enter fresh lease for a period of five years. Defendants issued reply notice with false allegations. Subsequently, there were negotiations in the presence of Suravarapu Venkata Reddy and Ambati Srinivas Reddy. There was a compromise to extend the lease orally. Plaintiffs issued notice requesting the defendants not to take any coercive steps against them. With these averments, the suit was filed for perpetual injunction. 3. Defendant No.3 filed written statement and counter claim. It was contended inter alia that plaintiffs approached the defendants with an intention to run Tirumala Hotel Sarovar Lodge in the plaint schedule property. Accordingly registered lease deed was executed on 27.05.2015. With these averments, the suit was filed for perpetual injunction. 3. Defendant No.3 filed written statement and counter claim. It was contended inter alia that plaintiffs approached the defendants with an intention to run Tirumala Hotel Sarovar Lodge in the plaint schedule property. Accordingly registered lease deed was executed on 27.05.2015. As per the terms of the lease deed, rent was fixed at Rs.60,000/- per month for first three years and thereafter at Rs.78,000/- per month. Power consumption charges are to be paid by the plaintiffs and property tax is to be paid by defendant No.1. Plaintiffs also paid Rs.10,00,000/- as refundable deposit. As per the terms and conditions of lease deed, if possession of the plaint schedule property is not delivered after expiry of the lease, plaintiffs will be treated as trespassers and defendants are entitled to claim Rs.25,000/- per day towards damages, from the plaintiffs. 4. Plaintiffs issued legal notice, dated 19.11.2020 requesting the defendants to extend the lease period for five years more. Defendants got issued registered reply notice, dated 24.11.2020. Plaintiffs again got issued legal notice dated 04.03.2021 contending about oral understanding. Defendants got issued reply notice, dated 08.03.2021. Plaintiffs, by suppressing reply notice, dated 08.03.2021, approached the Court with false allegations. As per recitals of registered lease deed, lease was determined on 31.03.2021 and plaintiffs shall deliver vacant possession. Counter claim was filed seeking eviction of plaintiffs and delivery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the defendants. 5. Counter claim was valued at Rs.78,000/- per month and accordingly Court Fee was paid. 6. Pending the suit, defendants filed I.A.No.203 of 2021 under Order XV-A read with Section 151 of CPC to direct the plaintiffs to pay agreed amount of damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per day from 01.04.2021 otherwise to strike off the defence of the respondents/plaintiffs. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the averments of the counter claim are reiterated. 8. Plaintiff No.2 filed counter and opposed the application. 9. Trial Court by order, dated 03.03.2022 allowed the application and directed plaintiffs to deposit Rs.25,000/- per day towards damages for use and occupation of plaint schedule property from 01.04.2021 till the date of passing of order, within one month from the said date and continue to deposit Rs.25,000/- per day, pending the suit. For compliance, the suit was adjourned to 30.03.2022. For compliance, the suit was adjourned to 30.03.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 10. Heard Sri Sai Rohit, learned counsel representing Sri A.R. Srinivas Murthy, learned for the petitioner and Sri A. Venkta Durga Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order passed by the trial Court is in violation of Order XV-A of CPC. He would also submit that plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint about oral understanding. He would also submit that Court below failed to understand difference between rent and damages. He would also submit that plaintiff No.2 colluded with defendants and hence I.A.No.332 of 2021 was filed to transpose him as defendant No.4. Pending the said application, Court below passed the above order. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would contend that as per lease deed, plaintiffs must vacate the premises by 31.03.2021. The Lease deed further contains clause No.6 that beyond 31.03.2021, plaintiffs will be treated as trespassers and they are liable to pay Rs.25,000/- per day, to the owners and landlords, towards damages from 01.04.2021. 13. The point for consideration is whether order dated 03.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.203 of 2021 in O.S.No.279 of 2021 on the file of learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, is legally sustainable? 14. The facts referred to supra would manifest that suit O.S.No.279 of 2021 was filed for perpetual injunction by the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 3 filed written statement along with counter claim. Counter claim was valued at Rs.9,36,000/- and Court Fee was paid accordingly. Thus, monthly rent pleaded by the defendants, in the counter claim is Rs.78,000/-. 15. No doubt, as per the lease agreement, the lease period expired on 31.03.2021. The lease agreement was not marked as exhibit in I.A.No.203 of 2021. However, as seen from the order of the Court below, there is an observation that there is no specific clause for renewal of lease period after expiry of six years and the lease deed, in fact, contains clause for damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per day, after expiry of the lease. However, as seen from the order of the Court below, there is an observation that there is no specific clause for renewal of lease period after expiry of six years and the lease deed, in fact, contains clause for damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per day, after expiry of the lease. It is appropriate to extract Order XV-A of CPC, which reads thus: “(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 the date 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. Where 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 the 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 of for which is remained unpaid, after deducting from it, any amount. a. --- b. ---- c. -----" 16. 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 of for which is remained unpaid, after deducting from it, any amount. a. --- b. ---- c. -----" 16. Thus, from a careful perusal of Order XV-A of CPC, it is clear that Order XV-A of CPC manifests that in a suit for recovery of possession on termination of lease or license, with or without prayer for recovery of arrears of rent or license fee, the defendant while filing written statement shall deposit the amount representing the undisputed arrears calculated upto that date into the Court and shall continue to deposit the said amount. Where there is such a dispute regarding arrears of rent or license fee, the Court is competent to pass the order after affording opportunity to both parties. Explanation to Order XV-A of CPC clarifies that the amount representing undisputed arrears shall mean sum of rent, or license fee calculated for the period for which it remained unpaid after deducting from it any amount paid towards tax in respect of property and the amount paid to the plaintiffs under written acknowledgment and deposited into the Court, in any proceedings in relation to the said property. 17. In the case on hand, plaintiffs pleaded oral compromise and defendants denied the same. Defendants filed the counter claim and valued the counter claim, at the rate of Rs.78,000/- per month and paid Court fee accordingly. When defendants/landlords valued counter claim at the rate of Rs.78,000/- per month, whether Trial Court is justified in directing the plaintiffs to deposit damages of Rs.25,000/- per day? 18. The answer to the question is an emphatic No. Under Order XV-A CPC the Court must direct the tenant to deposit arrears of rent and continue to deposit the rent. The distinction between rent and damages is, rent is a consideration paid for right to use and possess property. In distinction if a tenant continues to occupy the premises after termination of tenancy, the landlord is entitled to claim damages for use and occupation. Rent being periodic payments for use and occupation of the property, damages are for a lease or injury suffered by landlord due to wrongful act of tenant. 19. In distinction if a tenant continues to occupy the premises after termination of tenancy, the landlord is entitled to claim damages for use and occupation. Rent being periodic payments for use and occupation of the property, damages are for a lease or injury suffered by landlord due to wrongful act of tenant. 19. Whether the landlord is entitled to damages or not will be decided after the evidence is let in by the parties. If the Court comes to conclusion that the plea of plaintiff qua oral compromise is false, Court will pass necessary orders as to damages. The quantum of damage will be ascertained on making an application and after letting evidence. The Clause contained in the registered lease deed dated 27.05.2015 regarding damages cannot be relied for the purpose of Order XV-A of CPC. 20. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that an amount of Rs.78,000/- is being paid regularly and the same is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Explanation to Order XV-A of CPC also clarifies that it is arrears of amount that has to be deposited by the tenant. In case of dispute, Court can also determine the rent. The concept of damages, in the considered opinion of the Court is un-known to Order XV-A of CPC. The Trial Court, in fact, have noticed Order XV-A of CPC, however, influenced or swayed away by clause 6 contained in the registered lease deed, dated 27.05.2015 and directed the plaintiffs/respondents to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- per day towards use and occupation from 01.04.2021 and imposed further conditions. 21. In view of the discussion supra, the order of the trial Court is not in conformity with Order XV-A of CPC and in fact is contrary to Order XV-A. Order of trial Court, if allowed to continue, results in manifest injustice. 22. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only, but includes the power of judicial review. 22. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only, but includes the power of judicial review. The duty of this Court is to see that the Courts shall not exceed its power that is conferred on it or exercise power based on extraneous material to pass any order and to keep the subordinate courts within its bounds of jurisdiction. 23. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order dated 03.03.2022 in I.A.No.203 of 2022 in O.S.NO.279 of 2021 is set aside. However, this order shall not come in the way of the trial Court in passing appropriate orders in case of plaintiffs’ failure to deposit the rent or any application being filed by landlords in relation to rents pending the suit. 24. Since pleadings are completed, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, trial Court shall dispose of the suit itself as expeditiously as possible within a period of 8 months. Plaintiffs in the suit shall cooperate to expedite disposal of the suit and also file list of witnesses. If the plaintiffs intend to drag the suit by filing unnecessary interlocutory applications, the trial court shall pass appropriate orders. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.