( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of a Judgment and order dated 12-2-1996 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small causes Court, Hyderabad in R. A. No. 242 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the learned judge allowed an appeal preferred by the respondents herein arising out of a judgment dated 21-2-1991 passed by the principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad in r. C. No. 296 of 1987 dismissing an application filed by the respondent under section 10 (2) (i) and 2 (a) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act ). ( 2 ) RESPONDENT-LANDLORD filed the eviction petition against the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rent payable for the months of January and February, 1985. The petitioner tendered Rs, 125/- by way of money order in the month of August, 1985 which was refused. The petitioner again sent Rs. 250/- by money order for two months in the first week of September, 1985 which was also refused by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed R. C. No. 414 of 1985 and has been depositing the rents in the Court of the Rent Controller to the credit of the said R. C. As on the date of filing the eviction petition, the petitioner was to pay an amount of Rs. 4,700/- towards arrears of rent from January, 1985 to February, 1987. It was alleged that the petitioner had sublet the premises to his brother without the consent of the landlord. According to the landlord, the monthly rent was Rs. 200/- per month whereas according to the petitioner the same was Rs. 125/- per month. ( 3 ) THE Principal Rent Controller before whom the eviction petition was, filed formulated the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the rent of the premises is rs. 200/- as alleged by the petitioner? (2) Whether the respondent had committed wilful default in payment of rents from January, 1985 till the date of filing of eviction petition, if so, the respondent is liable for eviction? (3) Whether the respondent sublet the premises to one Ganesh if so, the respondent is liable for eviction? ( 4 ) ALL the issues were answered in favour of the petitioner herein. (3) Whether the respondent sublet the premises to one Ganesh if so, the respondent is liable for eviction? ( 4 ) ALL the issues were answered in favour of the petitioner herein. On Issues 1 and 2, the Rent Controller held: the circumstances and facts of the case would establish that the respondent showed his bona fides in tendering the rents by M. O. and subsequently by filing deposit of rent petition and depositing the rents in the Court. Therefore, on the basis of evidence available on record, it is to be held mat there is no supine indifference on the part of the respondent in payment of tendering rents and therefore has not committed wilful default in payment of rents. Accordingly, the points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the respondent and accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to evict the respondent on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. ( 5 ) THE Court of appeal, on the other hand, upon consideration of the entire material on record and the decisions of this court in Adapa Santharam v. Sait Nathmal manik Chand and the decision of the Apex court in Maiku v. Vilayatk Hussain held that as the petitioner has not deposited the rent immediately after the filing of the petition under Section 8 (5) of the Act but chose to deposit only from 10-2-1986, he was a defaulter. It was further held that the petitioner has not sent notice to the landlord as regards the deposit of rents into Court as has been admitted by the tenant in the cross-examination. The other issues, namely, as to whether the rent was Rs. 125/- per month or Rs. 200/- per month and as to whether the petitioner had sublet the premises in favour of a third person, the appellate Court determined the same in favour of the petitioner. However, the appellate Court recorded that the petitioner was using the premises for residential purpose though he had taken the same for a non-residential purpose and, therefore, on that ground also, the landlord is entitled to seek for eviction of the respondent. ( 6 ) MR. PRAVEEN Vyapari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of the petition. ( 6 ) MR. PRAVEEN Vyapari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of the petition. He would submit that the petitioner had not only tendered payment of rent by money order but also filed an application under Section 8 of the Act. Learned Counsel would contend that there was no question of depositing the rent before any order in that regard is passed by the Rent Controller. Learned Counsel would further urge that since this aspect of the matter has not been considered in Adapa santharam s case (1 supra), the impugned order must be liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Courts below, the only question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioner was bound to deposit the rent when no order was passed. ( 8 ) THE law is well settled that a tenant must tender the rent to the landlord in terms of the contractual obligation. Section 8 of the Act provides an extra protection to the tenant so that in case of refusal on the part of the landlord to accept the rent, he may not be a wilful defaulter. Section 8 reads thus: 8. Right of tenant paying renter advance to receipt:- (1) Every tenant who makes a payment on account of rent or advance shall be entitled to obtain a receipt of the amount paid duly signed by the landlord or his authorised agent. (2) Where a landlord refuses to accept, or evades the receipt of, any rent lawfully payable to him by a tenant in respect of any building, the tenant may, by notice in writing, require the landlord to specify within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice by him, a bank into which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord: provided that such bank shall be one situated in the city, town or village in which the building is situated or if there is no such bank in such city, town or village within three miles of the limits thereof. Explanation: It shall be open to the landlord to specify from time to time by a written notice to the tenant and subject to the proviso aforesaid, a bank different from the one already specified by him under this subsection. (3) If the landlord specified a bank aforesaid, the tenant shall deposit the rent in the bank, and shall continue to deposit any rent, which may subsequently become due in respect of the building. (4) If the landlord does not specify a bank aforesaid, the tenant shall remit the rent to the landlord by money order, after deducting the money order commission and continue to remit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building in the same manner until the landlord signifies by a written notice to the tenant his willingness to accept the rent or specifies a bank in which the rent shall be deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-sec. (2 ). (5) If the landlord refuses to receive the rent remitted by money order under sub-section (4), the tenant may deposit the rent before such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed, and continue to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, before the same authority and in the same manner and the amount deposited may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the person held by the controller, to be entitled to the amount on application made by such person to the Controller in that behalf. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, by reason of the aforesaid provisions of Section 8, three additional modes of payment of rent has been provided to the tenant, namely, (1) deposit of rent in bank specified by me landlord, (2) tender by money order and (3) deposit of rent Controller under sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Act. ( 10 ) IN Adapa Santharam v. Salt Nathmal manik Chand (1 supra) this Court held that mere filing an application under Section 8 (5) of the Act would not by itself be sufficient and the tenant must deposit the rent immediately on that application seeking the permission of the Court. ( 11 ) SUB-SECTION (5) of Section 8 does not contemplate that any specific order has to be passed by the Rent Controller before the tenant deposits the rent. ( 11 ) SUB-SECTION (5) of Section 8 does not contemplate that any specific order has to be passed by the Rent Controller before the tenant deposits the rent. The right of the tenant under sub-section (5) is subject to the fulfillment of the condition that the landlord has refused to receive the rent sent to him by money order under sub-sec. (4 ). ( 12 ) A reading of the entire provisions of section 8 of the Act would disclose that after the landlord refused to receive the rent sent by way of money order, the tenant while exercising the right under sub-sec. (5) has to be deposit the rent refused by the landlord before the Rent Controller along with the application therefor and shall continue to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due. As noticed hereinbefore, a finding a fact has been arrived at by the learned appellate Judge to the effect that although such application was filed in 1985 subsequent to the refusal of the landlord to receive the rent sent by money order in September, 1985, the tenant actually deposited the rent only in february, 1986. In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner has failed to deposit the rent even after filing of the petition to deposit the rent, it cannot be said that the learned Appellate Court has committed any jurisdiction error in setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller and ordering for eviction of the petitioner. ( 13 ) IN J. Pushpaktha Devi v. Shyarnsunder, this Court held: a wilful defaulter, under the statute, does not get any exemption from suffering a decree for eviction only because wisdom had dawn on him at a later stage as each month s default would give rise to a cause of action for initiating proceedings for eviction under the said Act. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the Court finds no merit in the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.