The respondent is the owner of an extent of Acs.4.03 guntas of land in survey No.181 of Shamshabad Village and Mandal, abutting the National Highway. The petitioner is an advertising agency. It approached the respondent to grant licence for erection of unipole hording on his land. Both of them, agreed for terms of licence, and through agreement, dated 11.03.2008, the consideration was agreed to be Rs.19 lakhs per annum payable in monthly instalments, after deducting the income tax at source. Enhancement thereof is provided at 5%, per annum.

2. Disputes arose between the parties. The petitioner issued a notice, dated 10.04.2009, terminating the licence, on the ground that the visibility of the hording is seriously hampered.

3. The respondent filed O.S.No.313 of 2009 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for declaration that the termination of the lease by the petitioner is untenable and for consequential benefit, such as, recovery of arrears of rents. He has also filed I.A.No.3532 of 2009, which has since been renumbered as I.A.No.212 of 2010, under Order XVA C.P.C., for a direction to the petitioner to deposit admitted arrears of licence fee and to pay the licence fee in future, according to the terms of agreement. A prayer was also made to the effect that, in case the petitioner commits default in payment of the amount, his defence may be struck off. The petitioner opposed the I.A. It raised an objection, as to the very maintainability of the I.A. Through its order, dated 13.04.2010, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this revision.

4. Sri T.Surya Karan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that Order XVA C.P.C., can be invoked, only in cases where a suit is filed for eviction of a tenant, lessee or licencee, and in the instant case, it is not even pleaded that the petitioner is in possession or enjoyment of any property held by the respondent, on lease, or licence. He contends that the pleadings in the plaint and the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., clearly demonstrate that the licence stood terminated unilaterally, and in that view of the matter, there does not exist any occasion to invoke Order XVA C.P.C.

5. Sri R.A.Atchuthanand, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the application was filed by invoking the analogy and the principle underlying Order XVA and Section 151 C.P.C. and once the relationship of the parties as a licenser or licensee is not disputed, no exception can be taken to the filing of I.A. He contends that the trial Court has undertaken a detailed discussion in dealing with the contentions advanced by both the parties and has arrived at a just and proper conclusion.

6. The petitioner was granted licence to erect unipole hording in part of the land owned by the respondent. There is no dispute that the terms of licence were reduced into writing, and that on the strength of the same, not only a unipole hording was erected, but also licence fee as agreed to was paid till September, 2008. Disputes arose and correspondence ensued mainly, on the ground that the visibility of the hording is obstructed and that is no longer remunerative for the petitioner. The agreement was terminated by the petitioner through a written communication. The respondent filed the suit for a declaration that the said communication is illegal, and for consequential remedy.

7. The respondent filed I.A.212 of 2010 under Order XVA and Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to direct the petitioner herein to pay admitted arrears of licence fee from October, 2008, till the date of filing of I.A., with periodical enhancements. In all, a sum of Rs.16,07,083/- was claimed, with a prayer to strike off the defence of the petitioner, in case the amount is not paid. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the I.A.

8. The question that arises for consideration in this revision is, as to whether the I.A., filed by the r