1. The petitioner is the sole defendant in O.S.No.4 of 2008. The respondents are the owners of commercial premises situated in Ongole Town. They leased the same to the petitioner for establishment of a Hotel. A lease deed was executed on 13.11.2006. Salient features of the lease are that the lease shall be for a period of 20 years, on a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/-, with periodical revisions. The deed contains clauses, which provides for termination of lease, in the event of default in payment of rents, for certain months consecutively.

2. The respondents filed the suit initially in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, for eviction of the petitioner. It was alleged that the lease stood terminated, on account of the default committed by the petitioner. They filed I.A.No.42 of 2008 under Order XVA C.P.C., with a prayer to direct the petitioner to deposit the rents together with the arrears that have accumulated to the tune of Rs.2,55,000/-. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, passed an order on 26.06.2009, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- as arrears, and placing it under the obligation to pay the rents regularly. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1105 of 2009 under Section 145 C.P.C. with a prayer to extend the time stipulated for payment of arrears till 31.08.2009. Time was extended and the amount was deposited, within the extended time.

3. The respondents filed I.A.No.1380 of 2009 with a prayer to strike off the defence, on the ground that an amount of Rs.10,37,480/- was deposited on 31.08.2009 without notice to them, and they have withdrawn the amount without prejudice to their rights. Certain subsidiary contentions were also advanced.

4. The respondents filed I.A.No.383 of 2010 under Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to direct the petitioner to submit copy of Form16-A filed under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act. When I.A.Nos.1380 of 2009 and 383 of 2010 were pending enquiry, the suit was transferred to the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ongole. The suit was renumbered as O.S.No.105 of 2010 and I.A.Nos.1380 of 2009 and 383 of 2010 as I.A.Nos.479 & 480 of 2010, respectively. The applications were opposed by the petitioner.

5. Through a common order, dated 16.03.2011, the trial Court allowed both the applications. On the basis of order passed in I.A.No.479 of 2010, it has also decreed the suit. This C.R.P. is directed against the order in I.A.No.479 of 2010.

6. During the pendency of the present revision, the petitioner A.S.No.213 of 2011, feeling aggrieved by the decree dated 16.03.2011 passed in O.S.No.105 of 2010. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court had allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and remanded the matter to the trial Court for adjudication on merits.

7. In this revision, learned counsel for the parties, have advanced arguments almost on the same lines. They have also drawn the attention of this Court, to the relevant provisions of law and the specific facts that have bearing on the matter.

8. On the face of it, the approach adopted by the trial Court was untenable. I.A.No.479 of 2010 was filed by invoking Order XVA and Order XII Rule 6 C.P.C. Both the provisions operate totally in different fields. Hardly there exists any similarity or overlapping between these provisions. While the former pertains to striking off defence, the latter deals with the admissions and the consequences thereof. An objection ought to have been raised by the Court, for the application in which two distinct and different provisions were invoked. Assuming that two separate applications were filed for the respective reliefs, it needs to be seen as to whether the trial Court dealt with the same in accordance with law.

9. The defence of a defendant in a suit for eviction of a lessee can be struck off, if only he failed to deposit the lease amount, as directed by the trial Court in an application filed under Order XVA C.P.C. It needs to be m