C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 18.03.2014, in I.A. No. 936 of 2013 in O.S. No. 1247 of 2013, on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short 'the lower Court').

2. The petitioners filed the above-mentioned suit for eviction of the respondents from the suit schedule property and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 90 lakhs and for future mesne profits @ Rs. 30 lakhs per month from the date of filing the suit. Pending the suit, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 936 of 2013, under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for a direction to respondent No. 1 to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs. 90 lakhs and a monthly rent of Rs. 15 lakhs to the credit of the suit in the lower Court.

3. In short, the plea of the petitioners is that they are the joint owners of the suit schedule property and that they have let out the same to respondent No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 7.5 lakhs under registered lease deed, dated 26-04-2012; that under unregistered agreement, dated 27-04-2012, respondent No. 1 has agreed to pay another sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs towards "hire and user charges for fixtures and fittings"; that respondent No. 1 has paid the accrued amount of Rs. 15 lakhs from November, 2011 to March, 2013 and that it has sublet a part of the suit schedule premises leased out to it to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It was further pleaded that from April, 2013 onwards, respondent No. 1 has committed default in payment of the sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs as agreed under unregistered agreement, dated 27-04-2012, while collecting rents from its sub-tenants and that through the lawyer's notice, dated 02-09-2013, the petitioners terminated tenancy and demanded delivery of vacant possession. As this demand was not met by respondent No. 1, the petitioners filed O.S. No. 1217 of 2013 for eviction. In the suit, the petitioners have filed the above-mentioned IA under Order XV-A CPC for a direction to respondent No. 1 to deposit the withheld amounts in the Court.

4. On behalf of respondent No. 1, its Managing Director filed a counter-affidavit wherein, while admitting the execution of lease deed, dated 26-04-2012, he has denied the execution of unregistered agreement, dated 27-04-2012. He has further averred that the petitioners approached respondent No. 1 for payment of additional security deposit of Rs. 1.2 Crore refundable at the time of vacation of the suit schedule premises or termination of lease deed along with the security deposit made under registered lease deed, dated 26-04-2012, and that since respondent No. 1 was not in a position to arrange such huge payment in one lumpsum, it has agreed to pay the same in monthly installments @ Rs. 7.5 lakhs in addition to the monthly rent of Rs. 7.5 lakhs; and that accordingly, respondent No. 1 has paid the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs till June, 2013.

5. Having regard to the respective pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by their Counsel, the lower Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners.

6. I have heard Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. Chereddy Srinivasa Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, at length.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the conduct of respondent No. 1, it is clearly evident that its denial of liability to pay the sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs towards hire and user charges for fixtures and fittings is absolutely unjustified and unsustainable. He has relied upon "Forms 26 AS" submitted by respondent No. 1 before the Income Tax Authorities showing the amount payable to the petitioners as Rs. 15 lakhs and deducting TDS therefrom. The learned Counsel submitted that from this conduct of respondent No. 1, it is reasonable to conclude that respondent No. 1 has agreed to pay Rs. 15 lakhs comprising Rs. 7.5 lakhs towards rent and another sum of Rs. 7.5