ORDER :

AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI, J.

1. This revision, filed by the defendant in as. No. 574 of 2018 on the file of the Court of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, challenges the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the said Court in I.A. No. 874 of 2018, filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein under Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The respondent herein instituted the said suit for the following reliefs:

"(a) For eviction of the defendant, its men and agents from the Plaint 'B' Schedule property and for recovery of vacant possession thereof.

(b) For recovery of Rs. 15,75,000/- being arrears of rents from 01.05.2018 to 30.11.2018.

(c) For future damages for use and occupation from the date of suit till eviction at such rate as the Honourable Court deems reasonable on the basis of rental values prevailing in that area,

(d) For a permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant and its men and agents from causing obstruction to the ingress and egress of the Plaintiff and their men from going to the penthouse and terrace by using the lift and staircase.

(e) For costs and such other relief/reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."

3. Along with the said suit, respondent herein filed the present I.A. No. 874 of 2018 under Order Order of C.P.C. for a direction to the defendant-petitioner herein to pay Rs. 22,47,500/- towards arrears of rent for the period from 01.05.2018 to 30.11.2018 and to pay continuously @ Rs. 3,75,000/- per month plus GST of 18%. Resisting the said I.A. and denying the quantum of rent payable, the defendant-petitioner herein filed a counter. The learned Additional District Judge, by way of the impugned order, allowed I.A. No. 874 of 2018 and directed the defendant-petitioner herein to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 22,47,500/- after deducting 20 days' rent of May, 2018 with a condition that in the event of failure to do so, defence would be struck-off.

4. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Heard Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent herein, apart from perusing the material available on record.

6. Submissions/contentions of Sri P. Rajesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner:

(1) Impugned order is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order XV-A of C.P.C.

(2) Had the contents of the supporting affidavit and the evidence adduced by the petitioner herein before the Court below been considered by the Court below from proper perspective, the questioned order would not have emanated.

(3) The Court below arrived at the conclusions as to the quantum of rent on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and the said conclusions are completely bereft of any foundation and basis and are completely on the basis of the pleadings of the plaintiff without being supported by any valid documentary evidence.

(4) The Court below grossly erred in placing reliance on the lease deed, pertaining to the earlier lease and the same cannot be the basis for determining the dispute as regards the quantum of rent between the petitioner and the respondent in the instant case.

(5) Ex. P.4 agreement of lease dated 28.04.2018, sought to be pressed into service by the plaintiff is not admissible in evidence for want of registration and stamp duty.

7. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned counsel takes the support of the following judgments:

(1) Vasavi Boys Hostel and Mess v. K. Satya Prasad 2013 (1) ALT 401.

(2) A. Yeshoda v. Digamber Rao Surve 2005 (2) ALT 355.

(3) K. Ramamoorthi v. C. Surendranatha Reddy 2012 (6) ALT 786.

8. Submissions/contentions of Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent:

(1) There is no error nor there exists any infirmity in