ORDER

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2023 in I.A. No.486 of 2023 in O.S. No.1989 of 2022 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri, at Malkajgiri.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed for eviction and recovery of money. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the suit scheduled property.

3. Heard Sri. R. Rama Brahma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

4. The petitioner herein filed an interlocutory application under Order 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) seeking for deposit of rental amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand Only) per month into the Court till the disposal of the main suit. The Trial Court on hearing the parties had dismissed the application. The present revision is preferred aggrieved by the same.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner herein contends that, the Court below ought not to have observed that there was no relationship of lessor and lessee between the petitioner and the respondents herein, as it was never his case that the property was leased out. Rather, it is contended that the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application as the petitioner herein was the owner of the suit scheduled property.

6. I have taken note of the contentions urged.

7. Shorn of unnecessary details it is the petitioner’s case that initially the suit schedule property belonged to his father one Mr.

A. Dasaratha Reddy; that subsequently he had become the owner of the suit scheduled property by virtue of a partial partition which occurred between the petitioner and his four brothers; that the respondent No.1 herein being his paternal uncle was permitted to continue in the suit scheduled property; and that he had inducted respondent No.2 herein illegally into the suit scheduled property without the permission of the petitioner herein.

8. Contrarily, the respondent No.1 herein in his counter affidavit filed to the underlying application, had denied that the ownership of the suit scheduled property by the petitioner herein. It is his claim that the said property originally belonged to his father Mr. A. Gopal Reddy who was a pattedar of several other surrounding lands; that after his father’s death, the respondent No.1 along with the petitioner’s late father and other brothers had executed a joint Notarized Declaration dated 05.01.1998, wherein the petitioner’s father and their other brothers had declared that the suit scheduled property along with some other parcels of land was acquired by the respondent No.1 herein; and that they had no objection towards the same.

9. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Court below had categorically observed that there was neither any relationship of lessor-lessee between the parties nor the petitioner herein could clearly establish his prima facie title to the property.

Therefore, the Court below while taking into account that the requisites under Order 15A of the Code, held that the petitioner herein was not entitled to receive rents from the respondents herein during the pendency of the suit.

10. It is trite law that the Order 15A of the Code, was enacted with a view to ensure that a tenant who is in possession of the property does not enjoy the property to the detriment of the rightful owner. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Rani Gupta Vs. Vineet Kumar 1, has held that the only basic requirement in a suit under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code, is that the character of the defendant should be that of a tenant/lessee. Since, the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of the Code is analogous to the Telangana State Amendment to Order XV-A of the Code, the principle of law laid down in Asha Rani Gupta case supra, applies in full force. Further an order directing to deposit arrears of rent can only be granted wh