ORDER:

The present revision is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.361/2020 in O.S.No.71/2020 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.71/2020 on the file of Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial magistrate of first class, Palakol for following reliefs:

a. to grant of eviction of the defendant directing him to handover the vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff on or before the day fixed by the Hon’ble Court.

b. To grant a decree for Rs.2,76,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing him to pay the arrears of rents from February 2018 to December 2019 with further interest at

12%p.a. from the date of suit till realisastion.

c. To grant a decree for unauthorized use and occupation of the schedule as fixed by the Hon’ble Court from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of the disposal.

d. …..”

3. In the said suit, the plaintiff got filed I.A.No.361/2020 praying the court below to pass interim orders against defendant to deposit the rents into the Court or pay to the plaintiff directly till the disposal of the suit. To the said application, the defendant filed his counter denying the allegations and disputing that the plaintiff is not the owner as such, the said application cannot be considered by duly filing a memo to adopt the written statement as counter to this application. After hearing the same, the Court below has partly allowed the said application under its order dated 21.09.2022 directing the respondent/defendant to deposit the rents into the court at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month on or before 10th of every month from the date of this order till the disposal of the suit and shall deposit arrears from the date of this petition i.e,26.02.2020 to till date within 3months from the date of this order into the court, failing which the defence of the respondent will be struck off, aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

4. Heard Sri Kotha Naga Surya Rao,learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel for respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds contended that, respondent/plaintiff is not the owner of the property and Sri Nuli Venkata Satya Nageswara Rao used to collect the rents from the defendants for the said scheduled property every month till 2018 and after his death, his only son Sri Nuli Venkata Subramanya Ravi used to collect monthly rents from the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the Court below has ordered the petitioner to deposit the rents in spite of there being no material to show that the plaintiff is the owner of the subject property and also ordered that, if the petitioner failed to deposit the amount the defence of the petitioner will be struck off. As such the order is erroneous and the present revision has been filed. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that, there is one more suit O.S.No.62/2010 which is also pending for partition in which the said fact has been suppressed by the plaintiff and without getting decree in the said partition suit, he cannot claim any title to the subject property and thereby cannot collect any rents from the scheduled property. It is further submitted that, the Court below has failed to take into consideration these facts and thereby allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff. As such, prayed to consider the present revision petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that Sri Nuli Venkata Subramanya Ravi is the son of the plaintiff and cannot say that he has no right to claim rents as the rents were being paid to him after the death of Sri Nuli Venkata Satya Nageswara Rao. It is brought to t