ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is preferred against the order passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri in I.A.No.893 of 2021 in O.S.No.557 of 2020, dt.25.11.2022.

2. Heard Sri Ashutosh B. Joshi, learned counsel for Revision Petitioners, and perused the record. Though the name of Sri B. Srinivas is shown in the cause list as counsel for the Respondent, he did not appear and a request for adjournment was made on his behalf after the learned counsel for the Petitioners had concluded his submissions. The said request for adjournment was declined by the Court, as notices to Respondent in this civil revision petition were ordered on 06.01.2023 directing the matter to be listed on 27.012023. On 27.01.2023 when the matter was taken, as there was no representation on behalf of the Respondent, even though the name of learned counsel was shown in the cause list on the said date and the matter was directed to be listed today i.e., 03.02.2023. Thus, this court proceeded to dispose of the matter.

3. The Petitioners herein are the Defendants in the suit instituted by the Respondent herein as Plaintiff. The Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the suit for grant of perpetual injunction seeking to restrain the Defendants and their agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the residential house i.e., the suit schedule property by the Plaintiff.

4. The Petitioners herein, on receiving summons, filed their written statement and counter claim therein seeking for eviction of the Respondent/ Plaintiff. The Petitioners herein in their counter claim, in the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff for injunction, had valued the suit for the relief of eviction and also paid the appropriate Court fee under the Telangana Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’).

5. The Respondent/Plaintiff had filed his rejoinder and counter to the written statement and counter claim filed by the Petitioners/Defendants seeking eviction of the Respondent/Plaintiff.

6. The factum of Petitioners/Defendants being the owners of the scheduled property and the Respondent/Plaintiff is a tenant of the Petitioners/Defendants, is not in dispute.

7. The Petitioners/Defendants contend that on filing their written statement and counter claim, they had filed I.A.No.893 of 2021 under Order 15-A r/w Section 151 CPC before the trial Court to direct the Respondent/Plaintiff to deposit arrears of rent claimed in the counter claim and also to direct the Respondent/Plaintiff to continue to pay the monthly rents till the disposal of the main suit.

8. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed his counter to the said petition. The contention of the Respondent/Plaintiff is mainly that, in a suit for perpetual injunction a petition under Order 15-A r/w Section 151 of CPC is not maintainable.

9. The Court below, on consideration of the petition, counter and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the parties, had framed the following point for determination of the Court.

“Whether the Petitioners/Defendants are entitled to direct the Respondent/Plaintiff to deposit the arrears simultaneously calling upon the Respondent to continue to pay the monthly rent till the disposal of the main suit as prayed for?”

10. The trial Court by referring to the provisions of Order 15-A of CPC concluded that in a suit filed by the Respondent/tenant for injunction simplicitor, the Petitioners/landlords cannot file a petition seeking arrears of rent as rightly contended by the Respondent. The trial Court also held that if the Petitioners/Defendants have a grievance of the Respondent/Plaintiff not paying rents, the remedy available is elsewhere. The trial Court placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the erstwhile combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of M.B. Chander and Ors. vs. Balakrishna Rao Charitable Trust, 2017 (3) ALD 68 : 2016 (0) SCJ Online (AP) 32