JUDGMENT The petitioner who is landlord, by this petition seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make payment of arrears of rent. The petitioner contends that initially the accommodation was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 220/- per month. The petitioner approached the Rent Controlling Authority for fixation of standard rent. The Rent Controlling Authority by an ex-parte order dated 1.4.8.1987 passed in case No. 14-A of 901R/1/84-85 fixed the standard rent at Rs. 1,200/- per month from 14.8.1984 in accordance with the provisions of section 10 (4) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondents applied for setting aside the ex-parte order. That application was allowed, vide order dated 25.11.1988. Aggrieved of that, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed, vide order dated 21.12.1990 (Annexure P-3) and the application of the respondents for setting aside the ex-parte order was dismissed. The respondents aggrieved at the said order filed a Civil Revision No. 379/94 before this Court which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 3.10.1994. Thus, the order of fixing the standard rent became final. Therefore, the petitioner-landlord submits that the respondents are bound to make payment of rent as fixed by the Rent Controlling Authority but the Respondents are not making any payment and whiling away the time, therefore, this petition. Shri O.P. Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondents contended that this petition is nothing but an indirect mode of the execution of the order of the Rent Controlling Authority. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any relief. The petitioner, if he is aggrieved of non-payment of arrears of rent, has the remedy of institution of a suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not expected from Union of India to occupy the premises without payment of any rent since 1984. Therefore, the petitioner only seeks a direction in this petition against the respondents for payment of the rent and its arrears. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not expected from Union of India to occupy the premises without payment of any rent since 1984. Therefore, the petitioner only seeks a direction in this petition against the respondents for payment of the rent and its arrears. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in such a situation, the petitioner has to avail the remedy in an appropriate forum for recovery of arrears of rent as fixed by the Rent Controlling Authority and its arrears and if so advised for eviction; but that certainly does not give approval of the conduct of the respondents which is reprehensible. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner, if so advised to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of his grievance. However, in the circumstances, the respondents are liable to pay costs of this petition, which I quantify at Rs. 1,000/-.