Heard Sri Narayan Laxman Rao, the learned counsel for petitioner/defendant and Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, the learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff.

2. The point in this defendant’s revision is whether an order passed by the trial court under Order XV-A (A.P. Amendment) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, treating him as the tenant of the plaintiff in a suit for eviction and directing him to deposit arrears of rents and future rents can be said to be valid and proper.

3. The point arises in the following circumstances. Hereinafterwards, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The suit O.S.No.2386 of 2010 on the file of the court of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (trial court) was filed for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits on the plea that the defendant is tenant of the plaintiff in the suit property (a flat) and he committed default in payment of rents and on other grounds.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 24.11.2006 from its previous owners Rishi Swaroop and unal Swaroop. He also says that by the date of his purchase the defendant was already a tenant in the suit property under the previous owners and that after he purchased it he became the owner of the property by operation of law and the defendant became his tenant. The grounds of eviction are mentioned in the plaint and it is not necessary to go into the same here.

5. The plaintiff pending the suit, filed an application i.e., I.A.No.1443 of 2010 in the said suit under Order XV-A pleading that the defendant being his tenant did not pay the rents and claimed that the defendant is bound to pay rent to him and therefore he should be directed to deposit a sum of Rs.7,01,200/- towards past rents from 01.10.2007 to 30.09.2010 and future mesne profits. The break up is given in the petition.

6. The defendant contested the above application on various grounds. His contention is that he is not the tenant of the plaintiff and he is the tenant of the previous owner and the previous owners Rishi Swaroop and Kunal Swaroop executed an agreement of sale dated 12.07.2006 in his favour for the suit property and took advances from him, but they committed breach of the agreement and sold the property to the plaintiff. He says that he also filed a suit i.e., O.S.No.79 of 2010 for specific performance of the said agreement of sale and for a direction that plaintiff’s sale deed is not binding on him against the previous owners and the present plaintiff and that suit is pending in the court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and consequently he cannot be treated as a tenant of the plaintiff. His further plea is that Order XV-A is not applicable in this case as there is no landlord-tenant relationship between him and the plaintiff. He also pleaded that the rents claimed are excessive.

7. The trial court considered the respective cases of both parties and concluded in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendant by its order dated 15.02.2012 to pay a sum of Rs.7,01,200/- towards arrears of rent @ Rs.18,700/- per month from 01.10.2007 to 30.09.2010 and Rs.19,700/- per month from 01.10.2010 to 29.02.2012 within sixty days from the date of its order and to continue to deposit future rents as indicated in its order. It is questioning this order, the defendant has come up with this revision.

8. It is now well settled that Order XV-A CPC applies only when the tenancy is admitted or where the circumstances of the case are such that they positively show that the plaintiff can be said to have become the owner/landlord of the property and the defendant can be said to have become his tenant by operation of law also. Equally the rent amount should also be undisputed and in any event it must be easily ascertainable where any dispute is raised regarding the quantum of rent.

9. The learned counsel for the defendant relied