L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

The appeal and the revision are between the same parties and the subject-matter is common. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

The 1st respondent is the owner of a commercial premises, bearing No.15-24-216 of KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72, comprising of ground and first floors. The 1st appellant is a Private Limited Company and the 2nd appellant is its Managing Director. The 1st respondent gave the premises on lease to the appellants. A lease deed, dated 12.06.2010, was executed and registered. Salient among the terms are that the lease would be in force for a period of 9 years, and the rent would be Rs.3,41,500/-, per month, with periodical variation. The lease commenced and the appellants are said to have established a Jewellery shop, with necessary infrastructure.

The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.428 of 2011 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, with a prayer to direct the appellants to vacate the premises and to handover the possession thereof, to her. It was pleaded that the appellants committed default in payment of rent, and on account of non-payment, she was finding it difficult to repay the loan of Rs.1,53,61,500/-, obtained by her from Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited. It was also mentioned that the 1st respondent intends to start her own business in the premises. In the paragraph relating to cause of 1st action, mention was made to “termination notice, dated 06.04.2011”. The respondent has also field I.A.No.2204 of 2011 under Section 151 C.P.C. with a payer to direct the appellants to deposit the rents.

The appellants filed caveat in the trial Court. Hence, they got notice of filing of the suit and the I.A. They filed counter in I.A.No.2204 of 2011.

Even while I.A.No.2204 of 2011 was pending, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.3778 of 2011 under Order XV-A of C.P.C., in its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh, with a prayer to direct the appellants to deposit the arrears of rent and forfeit defence, in default.

The trial Court passed an order dated 04.01.2012 in I.A.No.3778 of 2011 directing the appellants to deposit the arrears of rent from 16.08.2010 to 31.12.2012 on or before 31.01.2012. It was also mentioned that in default of payment of amount as directed, the defence shall stand struck off. The suit was taken up on 02.02.2012. The trial Court has set the appellants ex parte on that day, stating that they were absent when called. The suit was decreed ex parte on the same day stipulating 30 days time for eviction. A.S.No.198 of 2012 is filed against the judgment and decree in the suit.

Based upon the decree, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.56 of 2012 on 13.03.2012. The Executing Court issued a warrant of delivery on 26.03.2012. C.R.P.No.1765 of 2012 is filed against the same.

Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, submits that the trial Court committed serious errors, almost at every stage, and orders were passed contrary to the specific provisions, and settled principles of law. He contends that, in the lease deed, there is a specific clause providing for arbitration, in the event of there being any disputes between the parties, and still, the suit was entertained without any demur. Learned Senior Counsel submits that though notices were exchanged between the parties, the 1st respondent maintained silence in the plaint as to the reply given by the appellants. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the brother of the 1st respondent, by name – Mahesh Naidu, dealt with the entire matter and by the time the suit was filed, Rs.27,30,000/-, was paid, to the 1st respondent, in various forms.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Order XV-A C.P.C., places specific obligation upon the Court to record a finding, as to existence of arrears, after giving opportunity to both the parties, and in the instant case, an order, which can virtually be treated as an ex parte one,