G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER-TENANT has challenged the impugned order of eviction passed against him under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter, 'the act' for short) by the chief judge of small causes court, Bangalore city. ( 2 ) THE tenanted premises bearing No. 179, 6th block, rajajinagar, Bangalore was owned by late j. c. nanjunda aradhya who was a school teacher. He was a patient of cancer. He died on 31-1-1981 leaving a registered will dated 19-1-1981 (exhibit p-8 ). In this will he appointed his brother j. c. mariyappa as the executor. The will inter alia states that the testator had agreed to sell the tenanted premises to the respondent who is his nephew being the son of his another brother and had already received a part of the consideration. In the said will he authorised the executor mariyappa (pw-2) to execute the sale deed in a part performance of the agreement and out of the outstanding consideration a sum of Rs. 20,000/- be spent for the marriage of his daughter. Accordingly, the executor executed the registered sale deed dated 1-3-1982 (ext. P-2) in favour of the respondent. Consequent to this sale, the name of the respondent was also mutated in the records of the Bangalore corporation, a copy whereof has been filed at exhibit p-4. ( 3 ) PETITIONER-TENANT had taken the premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 225/- from late nanjunda aradhya which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 250/- per month. After the property was purchased by the respondent under exhibit p-2, the executor of the will mariyappa (pw-2) sent a notice of attornment dated 15-3-1982 (ext. P-7) to the petitioner requiring him to attorn the tenancy to the respondent. Pursuant to this notice, petitioner started paying rents to the respondent regularly through cheques which are duly evidenced by the bank pass book (ext. P-3) which proves payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 225/- per month upto august, 1982 and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month upto june, 1984. ( 4 ) PETITIONER abruptly stopped paying rent from July 1984. Accordingly respondent issued a notice dated 30-8-1985 at exhibit p-5, demanding arrears of rent for 15 months, which was duly served on the petitioner on 4-9-1985 as is evidenced by the postal acknowledgment at exhibit p-6. 250/- per month upto june, 1984. ( 4 ) PETITIONER abruptly stopped paying rent from July 1984. Accordingly respondent issued a notice dated 30-8-1985 at exhibit p-5, demanding arrears of rent for 15 months, which was duly served on the petitioner on 4-9-1985 as is evidenced by the postal acknowledgment at exhibit p-6. According to the court below, petitioner neither sent any reply to this notice nor paid any arrears of rent to the respondent. ( 5 ) KEEPING in view the facts aforesaid, respondent filed the present eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. In the proceedings, petitioner filed his counter inter alia stating therein that Smt. Basavambika, wife of late nanjunda aradhya, had issued a notice dated 30-6-1984 to the petitioner to pay the rents at the rate of Rs. 225/- per month from 30-1-1981 and she has requested not to pay rents to anyone-else. This objection was filed on 7-3-1986. But on 1-8-1989 he got it amended as per court order dated 26-7-1989 by inserting paragraph 6 (a) incorporating his statement that he is paying rents of the tenanted premises to the said basavambika from july, 1984. The said basavambika has been examined as rw-3 who has supported the case of the petitioner that since july, 1984 rents were being paid to her; in support whereof exhibits r-1 to r-60 and the counter foils at exhibits r-65 and r-66 have been produced. The court below on thorough examination of oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case has disbelieved the case of the petitioner of having paid rents to Smt. Basavambika, and has further held that the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence worth accepting showing sufficient cause for non-payment of rents to respondent despite notice. Accordingly the impugned order of eviction has been passed. ( 6 ) THE legislature visualizing the situation wherein somebona fide doubt or dispute may arise as to the person who is entitled to receive rents for the tenanted premises, has laid down statutory mode of depositing rents till the dispute is resolved in a manner known to law. Accordingly the impugned order of eviction has been passed. ( 6 ) THE legislature visualizing the situation wherein somebona fide doubt or dispute may arise as to the person who is entitled to receive rents for the tenanted premises, has laid down statutory mode of depositing rents till the dispute is resolved in a manner known to law. ( 7 ) SECTION 19 (3) of the act provides thus:"19 (3) (A) where any bona fide doubt or dispute arises as to the person who is entitled to receive the rent for the premises the tenant may deposit such rent in court in such manner as may be prescribed and may continue to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the premises in court in the same manner or until the court makes an order under clause (b) or until the doubt is removed or the dispute is settled by the decision of a competent court or by a settlement between the parties, as the case may be. (b) if after such inquiry as it thinks fit the court is not satisfied that a bona fide doubt or dispute exists in the matter it shall forthwith order payment of the amount deposited to the landlord". ( 8 ) THE mode and manner of paying rents in a situation contemplated under Section 19 (3) (a) has been provided under Rule 8 of the Karnataka rent control rules, 1961, sub-rule (1) thereof reads thus:"8. Deposit of rent under Section 19. ( 8 ) THE mode and manner of paying rents in a situation contemplated under Section 19 (3) (a) has been provided under Rule 8 of the Karnataka rent control rules, 1961, sub-rule (1) thereof reads thus:"8. Deposit of rent under Section 19. (1) the deposit of rent in court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of Section 19 by the tenant shall be made either in person or through postal money order along with an application containing the following particulars, (i) the name and address of the person on whose behalf the money is tendered; (ii) the name and address of the landlord to whose credit the amount is to be placed in deposit, in cases where there is no bona fide dispute or doubt about the person entitled to receive the rent; (iii) the names and addresses of persons who claim to be entitled to receive the rent, in cases of bona fide doubt or dispute about the person entitled to receive the rent; (iv) the particulars of deposit, namely: (a) specification of the premises, in respect of which the deposit is made; (b) the period to which the rent relates; (c) the amount deposited as rent; (d) the process fee paid; (v) head of deposit, namely "civil deposit (rent)". ( 9 ) THE refore, if according to the tenant there is any bona fidedoubt or dispute with regard to ownership of the tenanted premises, it is mandatory on his part to deposit the rent in the court as provided under Section 19 (3) of the act and the rules as noticed above. He himself cannot decide as to who is the landlord and start paying rents to a person other than the one whom he had been paying hitherto. If he deposits or pays rent in contravention of the Provisions of Section 19 of the Act, he does it at his own risk making himself liable to eviction proceedings under clause (a) of the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the act. ( 10 ) IN the present case, admittedly, the tenant has not deposited the rent as provided under Section 19 (3) of the act and the rules as framed thereunder nor has he paid the rent to the respondent to whom he had attorned and had been regularly paying the rent till june, 1984. ( 10 ) IN the present case, admittedly, the tenant has not deposited the rent as provided under Section 19 (3) of the act and the rules as framed thereunder nor has he paid the rent to the respondent to whom he had attorned and had been regularly paying the rent till june, 1984. The court below on the basis of evidence on record has found as of fact that the tenant has not paid the rent from july, 1984 either to Smt. Basavambika who is now claiming to be the owner of the tenanted premises or to respondent. It has further been held by the court below that no explanation worth accepting has been advanced by the petitioner for non-payment of rent. Therefore, there was no sufficient cause for non-payment within the meaning of Section 21 (2) (ii) of the act. The said findings have been derived from the cogent material available on record and i find no infirmity therein so as to render it incorrect. ( 11 ) IN the case of Smt. Rajbir kaur and another v M/s. S. chokosiri and company, it has been held by the Supreme Court that,"16. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction depends on the language of the statute conferring the revisional jurisdiction. Revisional jurisdiction is only a part of the appellate jurisdiction and cannot be equated with that of a full-fledged appeal. Though the revisional power depending upon the language of the provision - might be wider than revisional power under Section 151 (or 115?) Of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet, a revisional court is not a second or first appeal. When the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional court must, indeed, he reluctant to embark upon an independent reassessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the one reached by the courts below". ( 12 ) AGAIN in the case of M/s. Bhoolchand and another v M/s. kay pee cee investments and another, the apex court while dealing with the scope of the revisional power under Section 50 of the act has held that,". . . . . . ( 12 ) AGAIN in the case of M/s. Bhoolchand and another v M/s. kay pee cee investments and another, the apex court while dealing with the scope of the revisional power under Section 50 of the act has held that,". . . . . . THE revisional power under Section 50 of the act even though wide as indicated must fall short of the appellate court's power of interference with a finding of fact where the finding of fact depends on the credibility of witnesses, there being a conflict of oral evidence of the parties". ( 13 ) FOR the aforesaid reasonings, the revision petition is dismissed with cost assessed at Rs. 2,500/ -. --- *** --- .