ORDER H.N. Narayan, J.—These matters coming on for admission, this day, the Court has taken up these matters by consent for final disposal, heard and disposed of by this order. 2. The trial Court has allowed the landlord's application I.A. No. II filed under Section 29(1) and (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (in short the Act), alleging that the Petitioner therein is the landlord and that the Respondents were tenants under him and were paying certain rents and they are defaulters. This application is made in a pending eviction proceedings filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Act. The trial Court, after contest allowed I.A. No. II directing the Respondents to pay the arrears within one month of the order. 3. The contention of the tenants appears to be that the trial Court while disposing of I.A. has made certain observations regarding the title of the landlord to the property, who claims to have succeeded under an unregistered Will. 4. It is undisputed that there is a Will under which the testator bequeathed certain properties in favour of all his four sons, out of whom one is dead and the share of the deceased son is given to his children. Incidentally, Mr. M.K.T. Prabhu, an Advocate of Bangalore, is one of them. When the eviction petition was filed by the Respondent herein against the tenants, the tenants engaged Mr. Prabhu, who is also a beneficiary under the said Will. The said Will is not in dispute. Brothers have not alleged any objection or dispute over the property bequeathed to them under the said Will. Now, under the circumstances, the tenants cannot contend that the Will executed by the testator is a doubtful one and that the landlord has not derived any title under the Will. The peculiarity of this case is that one of the beneficiary under the Will is the Counsel appearing for the tenants before the trial Court. He himself has not questioned the validity of the said Will. Therefore, it is not open to the tenants to raise this question at this stage, as they are not prejudiced at all. It is stated that the said Thimmesh Prabhu, the eldest brother of the Respondents herein was the rent collector. In spite of this, Mr. Thimmesh Prabhu being the rent collector, appears for tenants also in the eviction proceedings. Therefore, it is not open to the tenants to raise this question at this stage, as they are not prejudiced at all. It is stated that the said Thimmesh Prabhu, the eldest brother of the Respondents herein was the rent collector. In spite of this, Mr. Thimmesh Prabhu being the rent collector, appears for tenants also in the eviction proceedings. The propriety of Mr. Thimmesh Prabhu in appearing for the tenants in the eviction proceedings is a matter which he has to consider. There is a conflict of interest. He should not have appeared for the tenants in that case. However, I find no merit in the contentions raised in these revisions. 5. These revisions are accordingly dismissed. 6. Amount in deposit is ordered to be paid to the Respondent.