HAKEEM, J. ,, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision by the tenant is directed against the concurrent findings and orders of the courts below allowing the landlord's claim for eviction of the tenant on the ground under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Karnatska Rent Control act, 1961. ( 2 ) BOTH the courts have on proper appreciation of the evidence on records, found that the tenant did not pay or deposit the arrears of rent within two months of the service of notice as contemplated under the law. It is however found that the tenant has paid certain arrears of rents in the court, during the proceedings. ( 3 ) SRI K. I. Bhatta, learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the notice of demand proceeding the filing of the petition was not served in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In this connection, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Basha Baig v choodanath (ILR 1988 Kar. P-1632 ). It is not disputed that the notice dated 13-3-1978, issued through registered post was personally served upon the tenant on 20-3-1978. The petition was filed on 22-5-1979, long after the expiry of two months The contention of the learned counsel appears to be that although notice was, admittedly served personally upon the tenant, since it was not by one of the modes contemplated under the rules, it cannot be held to be a valid notice. I am unable to agree with this contention. What is contemplated under clause (a) of Sec. 21 (1) of the Act is that in order to seek protection from eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, the tenant should pay the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him, within two months of the date on which a notice for payment of such arrears of rent has been served on him by tendering or delivery personally to the tenant or to a member of his family at his residence. It seems to me that the decision cited above does not lay down, that there is any prohibition against tendering or serving of such notice through registered post upon the tenant personally, or that the tender of notice should be made personally by the landlord, what is required is tender or service of notice personally upon the tenant. It seems to me that the decision cited above does not lay down, that there is any prohibition against tendering or serving of such notice through registered post upon the tenant personally, or that the tender of notice should be made personally by the landlord, what is required is tender or service of notice personally upon the tenant. In the circumstances of the case, the ratio of the decision cited is not applicable in this case. ( 4 ) A combind reading of clause (a) of Sec 21 (1) of the Act and Rule 28 of the Rules discloses the legislative intent to permit a quicker and less expensive manner of service of notices required to be given under the Act. But when such notice is required to be given by the controller or the court. Rule 28 (3) provides for giving it though registered post. However it does not prohibit a party choosing the expensive mode of service by registered post which is definitely more reliable. ( 5 ) IN that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned orders warranting interference in this Revision under Section 115 of the c. P. C. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, the tenant is given time for vacating the premises upto 30-6-1989, subject to regular payment of current rents. --- *** --- .