V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment of the learned additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad dated 18-1-2000 rendered in R-A. No. 305 of 1994. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the landlord. The respondents herein are the tenants in respect of the mulgi bearing No. 15-5-37 situated at Afzalgunj, Hyderabad, hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the said mulgi. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-landlord filed an eviction case in RC. No. 697 of 1989 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller. Hyderabad against the respondents herein under Sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) for eviction of the respondents-tenants from the said mulgi and to put him in possession of the said mulgi on the ground of willful default in payment of rents. ( 4 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is the landlord of the said Mulgi. Originally he let-out the same to the father of the tenants for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 150. 00 and the father of the respondents-tenants executed a rental deed on 1-11-1974 in favour of the father of the petitioner-landlord. After the death of their father, the respondents-tenants became the tenants of the said mulgi on the same old terms and conditions. As such the petitioner is the landlord and the respondents are tenants in respect of the said mulgi. ( 5 ) IT is further stated that from the beginning of tenancy, the respondents-tenants have been irregular in payment of rents and contrary to the terms and conditions of the rental agreement, they were paying other taxes directly to the department without obtaining his permission and that they filed a false petition for deposit of rents and in spite of the specific orders of the Court, they were not depositing the rents into the Court and thus they have committed default in depositing the rents from 1-1-89 to 30-9-1989 i. e. for a period of 9 months amounting to rs. 1350/ -. Hence the eviction petition. ( 6 ) THE respondents-tenants filed a counter admitting the jural relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the aforesaid mulgi and regarding the quantam of monthly rents. 1350/ -. Hence the eviction petition. ( 6 ) THE respondents-tenants filed a counter admitting the jural relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the aforesaid mulgi and regarding the quantam of monthly rents. But they denied the averment that they were irregular in payment of rents and that they contravened the terms and conditions of the rental agreement. It is stated that only after receiving demand notice from the municipality to pay the taxes, they informed the same to the petitioner and his father. But as the property tax was not paid by the petitioner or his father in spite of the notice the respondents have no other option except to pay the same and adjust the amounts towards the monthly rents. It is also averred that after taking legal steps, they initiated the proceedings for deposit of rents and have been continuously depositing the rents to the credit of R. C. No. 483/86 and that they did not commit any default. They denied the allegation of the landlord that they committed wilful default in depositing rents from 1-1-89 to 30-9-1989 and stated that they paid the rents for the said period in the bank to the credit of R. C. No. 483/86 regularly every month. ( 7 ) IT is further alleged that the father of the petitioner demanded enhancement of rent in the year 1982 and also obtained a sum of Rs. 5000. 00 from them as advance apart from the deposit of one month rent for the purpose of granting tenancy and that the said amount was adjusted towards the rent. ( 8 ) IT is stated that since the date of commencement of tenancy, father of the petitioner or his representative used to come and collect the rent from them at the said mulgi and that they never avoided or refused to pay the rent and that the father of the petitioner got the rents collected upto the month of August, 1980 and issued receipt no. 128 dated 6-9-1980 and thereafter, he insisted upon them to enhance the rent and that the respondents did not oblige for the same. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner stopped collecting rent thereafter. Hence the respondents remitted rents by money Order. Again the father of the petitioner collected rents for September, october, and November, 1980 under receipts Nos. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner stopped collecting rent thereafter. Hence the respondents remitted rents by money Order. Again the father of the petitioner collected rents for September, october, and November, 1980 under receipts Nos. 129, 130 and 131 dated 2-10-1980, 1-11-1980 and 5-12-1980 respectively and again thereafter he did not receive the rent when tendered. Therefore, the rent for December 1980 was remitted on 7-1-1980 and again on 6-2-1981 by Money order, but the same was refused and that again on 3-3-1981 the rents from December, 1980 to February, 1981 were remitted by money order and it was also refused and the father of the petitioner also did not pay property tax to cause harassment to the tenants. Hence a notice was issued to the landlord by them calling upon him to specify the name of the bank for deposit of rents, but there was no reply to the said notice and hence the rents for the period from 1-12-1980 to 30-4-1981 were remitted by Money Order and it was refused and thereafter, the respondents filed R. C. No. 163/81 on the file of the 1st Additional rent Controller, Hyderabad, which was subsequently numbered as R. C. No. 483 of 1986 on transfer to the III Additional Rent controller. It is stated that the respondents went on remitting the rents regularly to the credit of the said R. C. as per the order dated 27-6-1981 and the said fact was known to the father of the petitioner and after his death to the petitioner and that the said petition filed by them for deposit of rents was allowed finally on 5-6-1987 and the respondents were permitted to deposit the rents in Court from December, 1980 onwards regularly until further orders and accordingly the respondents are depositing rents regularly without committing any default. ( 9 ) IT is further stated that the petitioner is liable to pay the property tax of the said mulgi, but as he did not pay the same during the pendency of the proceedings, the municipal Corporation of Hyderabad issued a demand notice No. 13 dated 12-1-1981 for rs. ( 9 ) IT is further stated that the petitioner is liable to pay the property tax of the said mulgi, but as he did not pay the same during the pendency of the proceedings, the municipal Corporation of Hyderabad issued a demand notice No. 13 dated 12-1-1981 for rs. 1,503-61 Ps for the period up to 30-9-1981 and thereupon the respondents issued a notice dated 13-3-1981 and called upon the landlord to arrange for the said payment to avoid issuance of distress warrant and in the said notice it was intimated to the landlord that in case of non-payment of property tax by 31-3-1981, the respondents would pay the same. But the landlord did not give any reply to that notice and also did not clear the property tax. ( 10 ) IT is further stated that again after filing of the petition for deposit of rents, the municipal Corporation served another notice No. 593 dated 3-12-1981 on the respondents in the name of landlord to pay property tax of Rs. 1310. 88 Ps for the period ending 31-3-1982. In the said demand notice, the MCH threatened to attach the articles of the respondents as the tax was due from 1-4-1978 and that they were forced to pay the property tax of Rs. 1310. 88 paise to municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under receipt No. 36 dated 4-2-1982 and the said payment was intimated to the landlord under a registered letter dated 9-3-1982 and thereafter the landlord deliberately and intentionally failed to pay the property tax to the M. C. H. and the MCH again gave a demand notice No. 72 dated 27-1-1988 demanding property tax of Rs. 1400-70 Ps up to 31-3-1988 and in the said demand notice also it was mentioned that if the amount was not paid within 15 days, warrant of distress will be issued for recovery against the occupants and thereupon the respondents have sent a notice dt. 8-2-1988 by registered post with acknowledgment due to the petitioner- landlord enclosing the said demand notice for payment of tax to the MCH, but the petitioner-landlord has managed to return the same and as such, the MCH has collected Rs. 705. 85 paise towards property tax from them vide receipt No. 76 dated 24-12-1988 and the said amount was also adjusted towards the monthly rents after the adjustment of rents deposited to the credit of rs. 483/86. 705. 85 paise towards property tax from them vide receipt No. 76 dated 24-12-1988 and the said amount was also adjusted towards the monthly rents after the adjustment of rents deposited to the credit of rs. 483/86. ( 11 ) IT is stated that the rents for the period from 1-1-1989 to 30-9-1989 were regularly deposited to the credit of RC. 483/86 and the rent up to November, 1988 was paid in the court vide challan No. 10405 dt. 5-12-1988. Thereafter the respondents paid Rs. 705. 86 ps to MCH towards property tax after due notice to the petitioner and the said sum was adjusted out of the rent from December, 1988 up to part of August, 1989 and was intimated to the petitioner and thereafter rents were depbsited as under: rs. 200/- on 5-6-1989 under Challan 6487 towards part payment of April, 1989 and May, 1989 rs. 150/- on 5-7-1989 under Challan no. 6133 towards rent of June 1989 rs. 150/- on 3-8-89 under Challan no. 6711 towards rent of July, 1989 rs. 150/- on 5-8-1989 under Challan no. 6546 towards rent of August 1989 rs. 150/- on 5-10-89 under Challan no. 6903 towards rent of September 1989. ( 12 ) IN view of the above payments, it is stated that the respondents did not commit any default much less wilful default in depositing the rents of the suit mulgi. ( 13 ) THE Rent Controller basing upon the rival pleadings framed the point as to whether the respondents have committed wilful default in depositing the rents at the rate of Rs. 150. 00 per month for the period 1-1-1989 to 30-9-1989 amounting to rs. 1,350/ -. ( 14 ) BEFORE the Rent Controller, in support of his case, the petitioner-landlord examined himself as P. W. 1 and got marked Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 Ex. P-l is the statement of accounts of rents paid by the respondents in r. C. NO. 483/86 (Old R. C. No. 163/81) and ex. P-2 is the certified copy of ledger account in R. C. NO. 483/86 (Old R. C. No. 163/81 ). On behalf of the respondents-tenants, the 3rd respondent was examined as R. W. 1 and ex. R-1 to Ex. R-139 were marked. 483/86 (Old R. C. No. 163/81) and ex. P-2 is the certified copy of ledger account in R. C. NO. 483/86 (Old R. C. No. 163/81 ). On behalf of the respondents-tenants, the 3rd respondent was examined as R. W. 1 and ex. R-1 to Ex. R-139 were marked. ( 15 ) THE evidence of the petitioner-landlord is to the effect that the respondents-tenants were not regular in payment of monthly rents and by the date of filing of the eviction petition, they were due rents from 1-1-1989 to September, 1989 and that even though the respondents-tenants were permitted to deposit the rents by the Court in R. C. NO. 1638 (R. C. No. 483/86) they did not deposit rents regularly as per the order of the Court. ( 16 ) HE further deposed that payment of the tax to the Municipality is the liability of the landlord and he has been paying the tax of the said premises regularly and the respondents have never obtained his permission to pay MCH Taxes for the period from December, 1988 to August, 1989 amounting to Rs. 705. 86 ps and that they have no right whatsoever to pay the said taxes to the MCH. He further deposed that the respondents did not give him any notice about the alleged deposit of rents from april, to September, 1989 and that there is also no such entry in the court records to that effect and even after filing this case, the respondents have not deposited the rents regularly into the Court. It is deposed that the late father of the respondents had paid an advance of Rs. 5000. 00 to the landlord which was agreed to be adjusted towards monthly rents and the said amount was fully adjusted towards rent by 1981 and that neither himself nor his father have ever refused to receive the rents from the respondents-tenants and have never demanded for enhancement of monthly rents and that he also filed a petition under section 11 of the Act for arrears of rent. . ( 17 ) THE third respondent who is one of the tenants was examined as R. W. 1. He deposed that the rents from 1-1-1989 to 30-9-1989 were deposited into the Court by way of bank challans and Ex. R-9 to Ex. R-12 are the challans. . ( 17 ) THE third respondent who is one of the tenants was examined as R. W. 1. He deposed that the rents from 1-1-1989 to 30-9-1989 were deposited into the Court by way of bank challans and Ex. R-9 to Ex. R-12 are the challans. A suggestion was also put by the landlord to this witness that the challans dated 3-11-1989, 5-9-1989, 5-7-89, 4-12-90 and 3-8-89 and 5-10-89 were deposited only on 16-12-89, 16-12-89, 21-12-89, 27-12-89 and 27-1-90, and thus there is a default committed by them in payment of rents from January 1989 to september 1989. Of course the said suggestion was denied by R. W. 1. ( 18 ) ON appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, the Rent Controller held that as per Ex. R-136 which is the certified copy of extract of Court ledger in R. C. No. 483/86, the part rent of April, 1989 and that of May, 1989 was deposited on 5-6-1989, but the challan was submitted into the Court only on 16-12-1989. But the entry in respect of may, 1989 could not be seen in Ex. R-136 and the tenants have not produced any documentary evidence about the deposit of rent for the month of May, 1989 and that similarly the rents of June and August, 1989 were deposited on 5-7-89, 5-9-89 respectively, but those challans were also submitted to the Court only on 16-12-1989 and that the rent of July, 1989 was deposited on 3-8-1989, but is challan was deposited in the Court on 27-1-1990 and the rent of september, 1989 was deposited on 5-10-1989, but the challan was submitted in to the Court only on 27-12-1989 and therefore, held that the respondents have submitted the challans to the Court belatedly. Therefore, he observed that the respondents have submitted the challans of deposits with inordinate delay and thereby denied the landlord to withdraw such rents from the Court and the respondents have failed to deposit the challans of the rents for part of April, 1989 and up to September, 1989, within due dates and therefore, the conduct of the respondents is held to be supine indifference in depositing the rents for the period from part of April 1989 to september, 1989 and hence the respondents are wilful defaulters in depositing the rents for the said period. Accordingly he allowed the eviction petition on the ground of wilful default by his order dated 18-4-1994. ( 19 ) AGAINST the said order, the tenants filed R. A. NO. 305 of 1994 on the file of the additional Chief Judge, City small Causes court, Hyderabad. The Rent Appellate authority, while deciding the appeal framed the following point for his consideration whether the tenant committed wilful default in depositing the rent from 1-1-1989 to 30-9-1989 for a period of nine months and if so, liable for eviction? ( 20 ) THE contention of the respondents-tenants before the appellate authority was that the non-deposit of challans into the court or failure to comply with the orders of the Rent Controller do not constitute wilful default in payment of rents. The Appellate authority after considering certain judgments concluded that the tenant is a defaulter, but not a wilful defaulter. It is further held that the tenants have deposited the rents regularly, but failed to deposit the challans in the Court and also failed to intimate the same to the landlord. It is also observed that no doubt the landlord failed to avail the rent, but he did not file cheque petition from time to time nor issued any notice to the tenant. Observing so, Rent appellate Authority concluded that even though there is default on the part of the tenant in not depositing the rent payment challans in the Court he can be ranked as a defaulter but not a wilful defaulter and accordingly set-aside the finding of the Rent controller and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents-tenants. ( 21 ) THERE is no dispute with regard to the facts as narrated above but the fact remains that though the rents relating to part of april, 1989 to September, 1989 were deposited into the bank/the challans were not deposited in to the Court. ( 22 ) SECTION 8 of the Act deals with the right of tenant paying rent or advance to receipt. ( 22 ) SECTION 8 of the Act deals with the right of tenant paying rent or advance to receipt. Section 8 (2) of the Act stipulates that 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. Section 8 (3) states that if the landlord specified a bank as 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. Section 8 (4) stipulates that if the landlord does not specify a bank as 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 specified a bank in which the rent shall be deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2 ). Section 8 (5) of the Act prescribes that 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. ( 23 ) NO doubt Section 8 of the Act is not mandatory and the tenant may invoke section 8 proceeding to permit him to deposit the rents into the court or may continue to send the money Order regularly without any default as contemplated under clause- (4) of Section 8 of the Act. ( 23 ) NO doubt Section 8 of the Act is not mandatory and the tenant may invoke section 8 proceeding to permit him to deposit the rents into the court or may continue to send the money Order regularly without any default as contemplated under clause- (4) of Section 8 of the Act. But the question that arises for consideration is whether once Section 8 of the Act is invoked and the order has been obtained permitting the tenants to deposit the rents continuously, and in the said course of payment of rents, if the challans are not filed into the Court, then what would be the consequences that would follow? ( 24 ) PROVISO to Section 10 (2) of the Act stipulates that in case of (wilful) default of payment of rent, if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant s default to pay or tender the rent was not wilful, he may, notwithstanding anything in Section 11, give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rents due by him to the landlord upto the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected. ( 25 ) FROM the above it is clear that when a landlord files an application under Section 11 of the Act, for payment of the deposited rents during the pendency of Eviction proceedings, and if the Rent Controller comes to a conclusion that the delayed payment is not wilful, then he may give a chance to the tenant not exceeding 15 days for payment of the same so also enable the tenant to contest the eviction proceedings. ( 26 ) RULE 5 (1) of the Rules, deals with deposit of rent under sub-section (3) or subsection (5) of Section 8. ( 26 ) RULE 5 (1) of the Rules, deals with deposit of rent under sub-section (3) or subsection (5) of Section 8. According to Rule 5, if a tenant desirous of depositing the rent under sub-section (3) or sub-section (5) of section 8 or Section 9 or Section 11 he shall obtain permission for the deposit of the rent from the Controller and the challan accompanying the deposit of the rent shall be in the Andhra Pradesh Treasury Code form No. 10 in triplicate and shall specify the name and address of tenant by whom or on whose behalf the rent is deposited, the name and address of the landlord entitled to receive the rent deposit and the rent at which and the period for which the rent is deposited, the description of the building in respect of which the rent is deposited and the provisions of the Act including the circumstances under which the rent is deposited and the head of account to which the rent is credited. Under Rule 5 (3) one copy of the challan for the deposit of rent returned by the SBH, Controller s Office or treasury, as the case may be, after endorsing thereon, the receipt of the amount deposited, shall be delivered in the office of the Controller or the appellate authority as the case may be. Rule 5 (4) states that on delivering one copy of the challan the controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall acknowledge its receipt on the back of the challan retained by the tenant and take necessary action for the service of the notice of deposit on the person or persons concerned within seven days of the delivery thereof. The notice of deposit shall be served on the person or persons concerned in one or other of the modes specified in Rule 16. Rule 5 (5) states that every Controller and every appellate authority shall cause proper accounts to be maintained in their offices for the rents deposited under sub-section (5) of Section 8 or Section 9 or Section 11. Rule 5 (6) says that a tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made before the Controller shall deposit all the arrears of rent due by him, if any, in respect of the building within such reasonable time, not exceeding 15 days, as may be specified by the Controller. Rule 5 (6) says that a tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made before the Controller shall deposit all the arrears of rent due by him, if any, in respect of the building within such reasonable time, not exceeding 15 days, as may be specified by the Controller. Rule 16 deals with the notices issued under the Act by the Controller or the appellate authority and all orders passed by the controller or the appellate authority if not pronounced in open Court shall be served on the person concerned personally by delivering or tendering to him the notice or order; or if such a person is not found, by leaving the notice or order at his last known place of abode or business of by giving or tendering the same to some adult member of his family; or if such person does not reside in the area within the jurisdiction of the controller or the appellate authority, by sending the same to him by registered post, acknowledgment due; or if none of the means aforesaid is practicable, by affixing the same in some conspicuous part of his last known place of abode or business; ( 27 ) UNDER Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act if the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month, next following that for which the rent is payable. If this section is violated by the tenant and if such a violation is wilful on the part of the tenant, it shall be held that the tenant is a wilful defaulter of payment of rents. Admittedly the rents from part of April, 1989 to September, 1989 have not been tendered or paid to the landlord by the tenants. Mere deposit of the rent under section 8 of the Act in the bank is not sufficient, unless the proof of payments is deposited in to the Court by way of challans. In the instant case, the landlord has been kept in dark totally and he was not aware about the deposit of the rents as the challans were not deposited into the Court and he was also not intimated by the tenants. In the instant case, the landlord has been kept in dark totally and he was not aware about the deposit of the rents as the challans were not deposited into the Court and he was also not intimated by the tenants. ( 28 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his contention relied on several decisions. In Smt. Arnavaz Rustom Printer v. N. D. Thadani a learned Judge of this Court while dealing with Rule 5 observed that rule 5 is mandatory. While answering to a question as to whether Rule 5 is mandatory, he held that it is mandatory. He further observed that the law has taken sufficient care to deal with the situation where the tenant is required to pay/deposit rents either before the original authority or the appellate authority. The mere fact that a tenant had been depositing rents in the bank, but failed to deliver copies of challans to the learned Rent Controller by itself amounts to wilful default. The learned judge further held that failure of tenants to deliver copies of challans to Rent Controller after depositing rents in Bank as required by rule 5 amounts to wilful default. Tenants habitually in arrears of rents and not paying rents regularly as required under the Act must be held to have committed wilful default and liable for eviction under section 10 (2) (i) of the Act. The learned Judge also held that the plea of the tenant that they were not aware of the procedure of delivery of the copy of the bank challan into the court cannot be justified when once the tenants failed to pay the rents regularly as required under the Act. The same view is taken by another learned Single Judge of this court in Hari Prasad Badruka v. T. Laxmi. In j. M. Benedict v. Mithileswari Jaiswal another learned Judge of this Court expressed the same view wherein it was held that the challans were deposited in Court one and half years after the due dates of rents and no notice was issued to landlord about the deposit of challans and therefore, the tenant cannot be absolved of his liability to be evicted. ( 29 ) IN Nimmagadda Krishna Hari v. Manepalli Mangamma a Division Bench consisting of the Hon ble Chief Justice and another learned Judge of this Court while considering Section of the Act held that section 8 of the Act is only an enabling provision to prove the bona fides of the tenant and absence of wilfulness on the part of the tenant in the matter of payments of the rents and non-adoption of the procedure prescribed under Section 8 (2) which could be adopted by the tenants in their discretion, does not throw any light upon want of bona fides of the tenant. It is further held that the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the act is only optional and not mandatory. It is further held that if the tenant chooses to adopt the procedure of depositing the rent under Section 8, he should continue to deposit the rents regularly and within the time as and when the rent falls due. If he is irregular in making the deposits, he may be guilty in payment of rent. ( 30 ) THE Supreme Court in M. Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu, represented by his power of Attorney Holder, A. Narayanaswamy Naidu that, if the tenant found that the landlord was evading payment of rent by him, he should have followed the procedure prescribed by Section 8 of A. P. Rent Act to issue notice to landlord to name the bank and on landlord s failure to name the bank, he should have filed application before the rent Controller for permission to deposit rent. Since the tenant did not follow that procedure it was held that the landlord was entitled to eviction for wilful default. ( 31 ) IN view of the aforesaid judgments, the other cases relied on by the learned counsel are unnecessary and irrelevant for the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 32 ) IN the instant case, the tenants have failed to tender the rents in favour of the landlord and are liable to be evicted under section 10 (2) (i) of the Act. Mere deposit of the rents into the bank without depositing the challans into the Court so as to enable the landlord to withdraw the same amounts to willful default on the part of the tenants to pay the rents. Mere deposit of the rents into the bank without depositing the challans into the Court so as to enable the landlord to withdraw the same amounts to willful default on the part of the tenants to pay the rents. ( 33 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the tenants have committed wilful default in the payment of rents and accordingly the order under revision in r. A. No. 305 of 1994 passed by the additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad in holding that the respondents have committed default in the payments of rents and not willful default is liable to be set aside. ( 34 ) IN the result, the Civil Revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad dated 18-1-2000 and the order passed by the iii Additional Rent Controller in R. C. No. 697 of 1989 is confirmed. The respondents- tenants are directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the said Mulgi to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.