ORDER : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1.1 CRP.No.1017 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 14.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.889 of 2021 in O.S.No.2227 of 2021 by the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 1.2 CRP.No.2233 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 14.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.217 of 2021 in O.S.No.2227 of 2021 by the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In CRP.No.1017 of 2023: 2.1 Petitioner herein is the petitioner – defendant, respondent herein is the respondent – plaintiff in I.A.No.889 of 2021 in O.S.No.2227 of 2021, which is filed under Order XII Rule VIII read with Section 151 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE to call the respondent - plaintiff to produce the documents i.e., 1. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 07.04.2009. 2. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 05.11.2013. 3. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 05.10.2014. 4. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 05.09.2015. 5. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 05.06.2017. 6. Xerox Copy Of Rental Agreement executed between Defendant and Plaintiff dated 05.05.2018. In CRP.No.2233 of 2023: 2.2 Petitioner herein is the respondent – defendant, respondent herein is the petitioner – plaintiff in I.A.No.217 of 2021 in O.S.No.2227 of 2021, which is filed under Order XV-A of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE to direct the respondent - defendant to deposit rents in respect of the suit property to the credit of the suit or pay the same directly to the petitioner - plaintiff for the period of April 2020 to June 2021 total amounting to Rs.3,38,000/- and continue to pay the same pending disposal of the suit. Grounds in CRP.No.1017 of 2023: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge ought to have called for the documents, which are essential to the claim of the petitioner - defendant. On the other hand, the learned Trial Court relied on the documents in I.A.No.217 of 2021 filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XV-A of CPC to deposit rents in respect of the suit schedule property relying on unregistered documents. On the other hand, the learned Trial Court relied on the documents in I.A.No.217 of 2021 filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XV-A of CPC to deposit rents in respect of the suit schedule property relying on unregistered documents. The impugned order is self-contradictory in nature and completely antithetical to the probabilities of the case and prayed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.889 of 2021 in O.S.No.2227 of 2021, dated 14.09.2022. Grounds in CRP.No.2233 of 2023: 4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the original copies of the documents were essential to support the claim of the petitioner - defendant. The learned Trial Judge failed to consider that the respondent herein – plaintiff has admitted in his counter that the documents of rental deeds were unregistered, insufficiently stamped and inadmissible in evidence as they filed the xerox copies, then the Court ought not to have marked the documents and ought not to have granted relief of deposit of arrears of rent. 4.2 The learned Trial Court ought to have seen that Ex.P1 are the counter foils of rental receipts which were marked without production of the original receipts and moreover the respondent herein – petitioner - plaintiff failed to produce the original documents. Ex.P4 is the returned postal cover, which itself is a proof that the petitioner herein - defendant has not received the notice sent by the respondent herein – petitioner - plaintiff. When the petitioner herein - defendant is in occupation over the suit schedule property, the question of return of the registered postal cover with an endorsement that ‘no such person is residing in this house’ does not arise and prayed to set aside the order in I.A.No.217 of 2021 in O.S.No.2227 of 2021, dated 14.09.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the trial Court and no interference is called for. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Meera Devi (D) thr. LR Vs. Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) thr. LRs , [2025 (2) ALD 129 (SC)] and prayed to dismiss both the CRPs. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Meera Devi (D) thr. LR Vs. Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) thr. LRs , [2025 (2) ALD 129 (SC)] and prayed to dismiss both the CRPs. 6.1 Petitioner in CRP.No.1017 of 2023 - defendant has filed I.A.No.889 of 2021 on 17.12.2021 to grant leave to call the respondent therein - plaintiff to produce the original documents as stated supra in paragraph No.2.1, which are vital and essential for proving the case as Xerox copies of the documents are submitted in the Court. 6.2 Respondent – plaintiff has filed counter and contended that the case set up by the defendant is that he was a tenant but in the year 2009 he entered into an agreement of sale and ended up paying more than what was the sale consideration, so that the defendant has to prove the agreement of sale and not jural relationship, which is the burden of the plaintiff. The defendant has not set up any case as to in what way these documents are relevant for deciding the application. 6.3. The learned Trial Court after considering the affidavit and the counter filed therein dismissed the petition holding that for adjudicating the petition under Order XV-A the documents which were sought by the petitioner – defendant is not necessary. 7.1 Respondent in CRP.No.2233 of 2023 is the petitioner - plaintiff who filed I.A.No.217 of 2021 under Order 15-A of CPC to direct the respondent therein - defendant to deposit rents for the period from April 2020 to June 2021 totaling Rs.3,38,000/-. 7.2 Respondent therein – defendant has filed counter and contended that he has paid an amount of Rs.17,13,346/- to the plaintiff which is more than the agreed sale consideration and further contended that the tenancy was for 11 months which was extended from time to time by mutual consent by enhancement of rent at the rate of 5% for future renewal period of every 11 months. 7.3 The learned Trial Court after going through the material in I.A.No.217 of 2021 allowed the application vide order dated 14.09.2022 directing the respondent therein – defendant (petitioner herein) to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs.3,38,000/- from April2020 to June 2021 within four months from the date of order and further directed to continue to pay the future rents of every succeeding month on or before 10 th of every month till disposal of the main suit. 8.1 Respondent in both the CRPs is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rents and the prayers made thereon are, i) pass a judgment and decree for eviction against the defendant thereby directing the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. ii) to pass a judgment and decree against the person and property of the defendant for recovery of arrears of rents of Rs.3,38,000/- from April 2020 to June 2021 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till the decree is fully satisfied with cost. iii) for recovery of arrears of property tax for a sum of Rs.44,312/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit [08.06.2021] till the decree is fully satisfied with costs. 8.2 Petitioner in both CRPs, who is the defendant in the suit has filed his written statement and contended that on 07.04.2009 he entered into rental agreement with the respondent – plaintiff to run business in the suit schedule property on monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- per month, which is payable on or before 10 th of every English calendar month in advance with a refundable deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- and the other terms and conditions were mutually agreed between the parties, which was reduced into writing vide rental deed dated 07.04.2009 which has been in possession of the respondent - plaintiff and a copy of the same is handed over to him. The tenancy was for a period of 11 months which was extended from time to time on mutual consent by enhancing the rent at the rate of 5% for future renewal period of every 11 months as such possession is delivered to him to run his business and after commencing the lease on 07.09.2009, the respondent – plaintiff offered to sell the suit schedule property that is 265 sq.fts on the ground floor plus 280 sq.fts on Mezzanine floor to him for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,62,500/- that is at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per sq.ft and he has paid Rs.17,13,346/- towards sale consideration which is more than the agreed sale consideration amount and requested the respondent - plaintiff to come forward to register the sale deed in his favour and prayed to dismiss the suit. 9. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985). 10. It is worth mentioning that the respondent herein - plaintiff has first filed I.A.No.217 of 2021 under Order XV-A of CPC on 09.06.2021 and petitioner herein - defendant, who is the respondent in I.A.NO.217 of 2021 has filed his counter on 03.09.2021. During the pendency of the aforesaid I.A., respondent therein (i.e, in I.A.NO.217 of 2021) – defendant has field I.A.No.889 of 2021 on 17.12.2021 for production of documents, for which the petitioner in I.A.No.217 of 2021 – plaintiff has filed counter on 07.03.2022. The learned Trial Court has passed separate orders on 14.09.2022 allowing the application filed under Order XV-A of CPC and dismissed the application filed under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC. 11.1 In I.A.No.217 of 2021, Exs.P1 to P4 and R1 to R3 are marked. The learned Trial Court has passed separate orders on 14.09.2022 allowing the application filed under Order XV-A of CPC and dismissed the application filed under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC. 11.1 In I.A.No.217 of 2021, Exs.P1 to P4 and R1 to R3 are marked. It is the case of the respondent herein - plaintiff that the defendant was inducted as a tenant in the year 2009 on a monthly rent of Rs.8,200/- and the tenancy was extended on the basis of unregistered rental deed for a period of 11 months and the quantum of rent was enhanced was under mutual understanding, the tenancy was lastly extended on 05.06.2018 under unregistered rental agreement and the quantum of rent was fixed at Rs.24,200/-. 11.2. Ex.P1 are the counter foils of rental receipts 55 in number, Ex.P2 is the office copy of the legal notice, Ex.P3 is the postal receipt and Ex.P4 is the returned postal cover. Ex.R1 are the bunch of rental receipts, Ex.R2 is the property tax and Ex.R3 is the notice of demand. 12. It is an admitted fact that the respondent herein - plaintiff is the landlord and the petitioner herein - defendant is the tenant and it is also admitted fact that the petitioner herein - defendant is still in occupation of the suit schedule property and running business in the said premises. The rental receipts filed by the defendant (petitioner herein) under Ex.R1 in I.A.No.217 of 2021 show that he is a tenant of the suit schedule property. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent herein - plaintiff has filed the documents which were marked before the trial Court in I.A.NO.217 of 2021, which shows the rent as Rs.24,200/- per month vide one of the receipt dated 05.05.2019 stating that the amount is received from the tenant - petitioner herein - defendant. As the rental receipts filed by the parties goes to show that since 05.05.2019 rent for the schedule premises is Rs.24,200/-. As stated supra, the jural relationship between respondent herein – plaintiff with that of the petitioner herein – defendant as landlord and tenant is established and the rent paid by the petitioner herein - defendant as on 05.03.2020 is Rs.24,200/- and the respondent herein - plaintiff has claimed arrears of rents from April 2020 to June 2021 that is till filing of the suit [08.06.2021]. 14. 14. The learned Trial Court has also considered the contention of the petitioner - defendant that he has entered into agreement of sale with regard to the suit schedule property but there was no pleadings with regard to the filing of the suit for specific performance in paragraph No.32 of the order in I.A.No.217 of 2022 dated 14.09.2022. 15. In Meera Devi’s case the Supreme Court observed that failure of respondent – tenant to comply with the interim order passed by the High Court regarding payment of rent during pendency of appeal before the Court, amounts to default, respondent – tenant, therefore, directed to be evicted forthwith. 16. The above said decision is not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that the CRPs are assailed against orders passed under Order XVA of CPC and Order XXII Rule 8 of CPC. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent herein - plaintiff submits that petitioner herein – defendant has made false statement in his affidavit and he is liable for punishment. It is left open to the respondent herein - plaintiff to take recourse under law. 18. The documents marked in I.A.No.217 of 2021 established the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant followed by the rental receipts showing the last payment of Rs.24,200/- on March 2020. 19. The learned Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons while allowing I.A.No.217of 2021 in paragraph Nos.33, 35 to 39 of its order dated 14.09.2022 similarly the learned Trial Court has also assigned reasons for dismissing the I.A.No.889 of 2021 in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of its order dated 14.09.2022. As the relationship of the landlord and tenant is established and the trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly allowed the application (I.A.No.217 of 2021) filed by the respondent herein – plaintiff to deposit rents and also dismissed the application (I.A.NO.889 of 2021) filed by the petitioner herein – defendant to call for the documents from the respondent herein – plaintiff. This Court feels that there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court and no interference is called for. Petitioner has not made out any case to set aside the impugned orders in both I.As and these Civil Revision Petitions lacks merits, deserves no consideration and the same are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 20. Petitioner has not made out any case to set aside the impugned orders in both I.As and these Civil Revision Petitions lacks merits, deserves no consideration and the same are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. 20. In the result, CRP.Nos.1017 and 2233 of 2023 are dismissed without costs. Interim orders if any stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous application/s stands closed.