Judgment : This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the Judgment and order dated 26th February, 2007, passed by the Principal District Judge, Latur, in Rent Appeal No. 05 of 2005. The revision applicant has also prayed that impugned judgment and order be set aside and judgment and order dated 11.04.2005, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Rent Controller, Latur, in File No. 1988/RCA/A/7 may kindly be restored. 2. Revision applicant herein is landlord and Deceased Original-respondent was tenant of the suit premises. Revision applicant will be hereinafter referred to as ‘Land-Lord’ and Respondent herein will be referred to as ‘Tenant’ for convenience. The landlord sought possession of the suit premises, which is shop situated at Latur from the tenant. According to the landlord, there was agreement of rent of the suit shop between himself and the tenant. The last deed of rent was dated 1st November, 1986. The tenant agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.400/per month and same to be paid till within first five days of every month. The tenant has paid rent to the landlord till September, 1987, as per the agreement. Since October, 1987 till March, 1988 rent was neither paid nor tendered by the tenant. No fresh “Rent-Note” was executed between the landlord and tenant. The landlord, therefore, had given notice to the tenant on 20th January, 1988 and demanded the rent. The tenant replied the notice on 22nd February, 1988. He informed the landlord that as there is dispute of ownership of the suit premises, he could not tender the rent. He also requested the landlord to show proof of the ownership of the suit preemies before paying any rent by him. 3. The landlord purchased the suit shop from Bhamabai Atmaram Hanchate. The suit shop was in possession of the tenant, as tenant, at that time also. The landlord had given information to the tenant about his transaction. Thereafter, “Rent-Note” came to be executed in between the landlord and tenant in the year 1986. The tenant was paying the rent to the landlord i.e. revision applicant till September, 1987. Since, the tenant denied the ownership of the landlord over the suit property, it is case of the revision applicant that he is entitled to get possession of the suit premises from the tenant. 4. The landlord again issued a notice on 07.03.1988 requesting the tenant to pay the rent. Since, the tenant denied the ownership of the landlord over the suit property, it is case of the revision applicant that he is entitled to get possession of the suit premises from the tenant. 4. The landlord again issued a notice on 07.03.1988 requesting the tenant to pay the rent. The tenant has not paid rent on the demand, within stipulated period of the notice. It is case of the landlord that even the said notice was not replied by the tenant. The landlord, therefore, filed suit for possession of suit shop, situated at Kapad Lane having Municipal House No. 23:124. 5. The tenant resisted the claim and he stated that there was rent agreement between himself and landlord and he agreed to pay the rent monthly. However, relatives of the landlord filed suit in the Civil Court at Latur bearing R.C.S.No. 1044 of 1983 for ownership of the suit shop. Both the parties claiming ownership, gave notices to the tenant, claiming their ownership and asking him to pay the rent to them. Since, there was dispute about ownership, the tenant denied ownership of petitioner over the suit premises. 6. As there was dispute about ownership, the tenant intimated to the landlord and also his relative that rent would be deposited in the Court itself. The tenant deposited the rent of the disputed shop before the Rent Controller on 04.04.1988. The tenant deposited arrears of rent on 15.4.1988 and on 25.04.1988 and he continued to deposit the rent before the District Court thereafter. It is case of the tenant that the said rent, which was deposited by him has been withdrawn by the landlord. Therefore, the tenant asserted that, he is not willful defaulter and ultimately prays that eviction petition filed by the landlord deserves to be dismissed. 7. The landlord has filed his own affidavit in support of his petition for eviction. As against it, the tenant examined his son, as power of attorney in support of his claim. The Rent Controller has accepted the claim of the landlord holding that the tenant is willful defaulter and landlord is entitled to possession of the suit shop. The Rent Controller allowed the petition of the landlord and passed the order of eviction of tenant. 8. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of the Rent Controller, the tenant filed Appeal against the order of eviction. The Rent Controller allowed the petition of the landlord and passed the order of eviction of tenant. 8. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of the Rent Controller, the tenant filed Appeal against the order of eviction. The Principal District Judge Latur, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties at length framed points for consideration/determination and by his Judgment and order dated 26.02.2007 allowed the appeal filed by the tenant i.e. respondent-herein. The order passed by the Rent Controller was quashed and set aside and petition for eviction was dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Application. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant submits that on 01.11.1986 the tenant executed rent note (HINDI) in favour of one Bhamabai Hanchate. Also Rent notes were issued by the tenant on 16.11.1982, 05.11.1983, 25.10.1984, 01.11.1986 and 22.10.1987, wherein monthly rent was to be paid in advance before 1st to 5th day of every calender month. It is further argued that the tenant did not pay the rent as per rent notes from October 1987 onwards and hence notice was issued to the tenant by landlord on 20.01.1988 for payment of arrears of dues and rent payable. Such notice was issued by RPAD. It is further submitted that on 22.02.1988 the said notice was replied by the tenant denying the payment of rent on account of ownership of the landlord and further seeking explanation from landlord to prove the ownership alleging that rent is alleged to be payable six monthly/yearly and he is not defaulter. It is further argued that on 17.03.1988 the landlord further issued notice to the tenant pointing out that though tenant has executed “Rent Notes” and paid monthly rent till October, 1987, further denial to pay the rent is nothing but a willful default and therefore there is right in favour of the landlord to bring tenancy to an end. It is argued by the learned counsel for the landlord that the landlord pointed out that he has filed Civil Suit bearing R.C.S.No. 1044 of 1983 against Vishwanath Tandale. In the said suit tenant filed affidavit on 18.09.1984 and denied ownership of the petitioner-landlord, hence tenant who denied ownership of the landlord should be rightly evicted as per section 15 (2)(vi) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (Hereinafter for short “Said Act”). In the said suit tenant filed affidavit on 18.09.1984 and denied ownership of the petitioner-landlord, hence tenant who denied ownership of the landlord should be rightly evicted as per section 15 (2)(vi) of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (Hereinafter for short “Said Act”). It is further submitted that tenant did not reply to the notice of eviction and therefore, landlord was constrained to file eviction application/petition under section 15(2)(i) and 15(2)(vi) of the said Act, before the Rent Controller, at Latur being file No. 88/Rent/CR/7 on 3rd June 1988. It is submitted that the Rent Controller on 15.02.1996 has allowed the eviction petition, however, the District Court in Rent Appeal No. 03 of 1996 set aside the order of the Rent Controller and matter was remanded back to the Rent Controller by order dated 21st October, 2000, with direction to decide the issue of willful default etc. On 11.04.2005, Rent Controller allowed the petition of the landlord and tenant was directed to evict premises within 30 days. The said order is set aside by the District Court, without considering that the tenant failed to pay the monthly rent from October, 1987 onwards, in spite of the “Rent-Note” and further denied monthly rent by filing reply to the notice of landlord. 10. According to the learned counsel for landlord, the case in hand squarely covers under the provisions of Section 15(2)(i) of the said Act. It is further submitted by the counsel for the landlord that denial of ownership by the tenant in his reply dated 22nd February, 1988 is squarely cover under section 15(2)(vi) of the said Act. It is further submitted that affidavit filed by the tenant on 18.09.1984 in R.C.S.No. 1044 of 1983 denying ownership of the landlord to favour Vishwanath clearly shows that tenant has intentionally denied the ownership of the landlord with intention to avoid rent and hence valid ground to evict the tenant under section 15(2)(vi) of the said Act. It is further argued that when District Court by framing issue held that as per rent agreement rent was to be paid monthly, hence failure to pay the same from October, 1987 till March 1988, by the tenant comes under willful default as per the provisions of said Act. As there is no evidence from the tenant to prove that he has paid rent from October, 1987 to March, 1988. As there is no evidence from the tenant to prove that he has paid rent from October, 1987 to March, 1988. It is further submitted that the District Court has committed error by giving contrary findings that the tenant-respondent is not willful defaulter in spite of the fact that the tenant admitted in his cross-examination that he did not pay monthly rent for the period of six months prior to 18.04.1988. It is further submitted that observations of the District Court that “even though before 15.04.1988 no rent was paid continuously for six months it can not be styled as a willful default”, such observations are contrary to the evidence on record. 11. It is submitted that once District Court arrived to the conclusion that the tenancy was of monthly in nature, in that case the provision of Section 15(2)(i) of the said Act, is applicable to the case in hand, as per the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the District Court committed error in allowing the appeal of the tenant when admittedly tenant was in default of payment of monthly rent from October, 1987 to March, 1988. The District Court should have considered that depositing rent by tenant before Rent Controller under section 14(3) of the said Act, on 15.04.1988 and 25.04.1988 does not cover willful default which was committed from October, 1987 to March, 1988. It is further submitted that the tenant has deposited rent before the Rent Controller on 15.04.1988 and 25.04.1988. It is submitted that, admittedly the application by the landlord before the Rent Controller was for eviction under section 15(2) (i) and 15(2)(vi) of the said Act, as such findings of the District Court is not correct and not applicable to the eviction proceeding. It is further submitted that, the District Court has proceeded on wrong assumption that the eviction proceeding of the landlord is actually for the recovery of rent, though the proceeding initiated by the landlord was for eviction on the point of willful default and denial of ownership by the tenant. It is further submitted that tenant has also admitted that he is having wholesale cloth store in Gurukrupa Market, Latur. He is also having three storied building in Kapad Lane and having business of clothing shop. It is further submitted that tenant has also admitted that he is having wholesale cloth store in Gurukrupa Market, Latur. He is also having three storied building in Kapad Lane and having business of clothing shop. It is submitted that, son of the tenant respondent Pokhardas, by name Prabhudas has adduced evidence before the Court, as a power of attorney and has admitted that they are having four business and having sufficient premises. It is submitted that, the said witness has also admitted that he has not paid the rent to the landlord in pursuance to the notice dated 20.01.1988 for payment of rent due from October 1987 to April, 1988. It is contention of the counsel that, this evidence is not taken into consideration by the District Judge. It is submitted that observation of the rent Controller that the tenant is willful defaulter on the point of section 15(2)(i) and section 15(2)(vi) of the Act requires to be upheld by this Court. 12. The learned counsel for the revision applicant in support of his submissions placed reliance on the reported judgment in the case of ShrikrishnaOil Mill, Latur Vs. Radhakishan Ramchandra, reported in2000(2) MH.L.J.644and submitted that once default is proved by landlord burden to proof that he is not a willful defaulter is on tenant. Payments made during pendency of proceedings cannot be considered for deciding whether he is a willful defaulter or not a willful defaulter. Learned counsel also invited my attention to other aspects dealt with in above mentioned judgment and submitted that, said judgment is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MangilalVs. Sugan Chand Rathi (deceased) and after him his Heirs and Legal representatives and anotherreported inAIR 1965 S.C.101(1),and in particular para No. 6 of the said judgment. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the reported judgment of this Court in the case of NandedWine Mart through its partners Vs. Ratnashaw Dishaw Jilla and another Vs. Suresh Shankarlal Dhoot, reported in2000(1) Mh.L.J,315and submitted that, default in payment of rent by tenant, burden to prove that default was not willful is on tenant. Learned counsel also invited my attention to para NO.13 of the said Judgment and submitted that practice of payment of accumulated rent cannot be accepted by way of explanation or defence. Suresh Shankarlal Dhoot, reported in2000(1) Mh.L.J,315and submitted that, default in payment of rent by tenant, burden to prove that default was not willful is on tenant. Learned counsel also invited my attention to para NO.13 of the said Judgment and submitted that practice of payment of accumulated rent cannot be accepted by way of explanation or defence. Learned counsel also invited my attention to reported judgment of this Court in the case of SureshchandraBagwantrao Dhiphode Vs. Uttam Dattatrya Jadhav and others, in Civil Revision Application No. 86 of 2004 decided on 0 5 t h October, 2010 . 13. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant relying on the said judgments submitted that, when rent controller has held in favour of the landlord on both counts i.e willful default and bonafide requirement, it was incumbent upon the appellate Court to record cogent and sufficient reasons while reversing those findings. 14. The learned counsel for the revision applicant also invited my attention to the grounds taken in the revision application and annexures thereto, the original record received from the Court below and submitted that this revision application deserves to be allowed. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for tenant i.e. respondent herein submitted that tenant has paid rent to the landlord till September, 1987 as per agreement, but from October, 1987 to till March 1988, rent was not paid by the tenant and no fresh “Rent-Note” was executed between the tenant and landlord. The Landlord gave notice to the tenant on 20.01.1988 and demanded the rent. The said notice was replied on 22nd February 1988. It is further submitted that the landlord himself has stated that R.C.S.No. 1044 of 1983 about ownership of the suit shop is filed by him. It is submitted that the parties in the said suit are claiming ownership and both of them gave notice to the tenant claiming their ownership and asking him to pay rent to them. Therefore, rent is deposited in the Court with permission on 04.04.1988. It is submitted that one Vishwanath Tandale issued notice to tenant for demanding rent on 06.11.1987 with claiming ownership over the suit shop. It is submitted that the District Court has rightly decided the aspect wherein in absence of claim of the landlord for eviction of bonafide personal use, Rent Controller should not have given finding about the said aspect. It is submitted that one Vishwanath Tandale issued notice to tenant for demanding rent on 06.11.1987 with claiming ownership over the suit shop. It is submitted that the District Court has rightly decided the aspect wherein in absence of claim of the landlord for eviction of bonafide personal use, Rent Controller should not have given finding about the said aspect. Learned counsel invited my attention to para No. 8 of the Judgment of the District Court and submitted that, the District Court has rightly recorded that order of Rent Controller in respect of bonafide need/requirement was prima facie illegal and which was beyond scope of eviction petition. It is submitted that the Rent Controller has not taken into consideration that there was Civil Suit being R.C.S.No. 1044 of 1983 pending before the Civil Court. One Vishwanath Tandale was claiming his ownership over the suit premises. Vishwanath Tandale has also filed affidavit in the said proceedings before the Rent Controller for adding himself as party to the said proceeding with permission of Rent Controller and in his affidavit he contended that the petitioner i.e. revision applicant is not owner of the shop. It is submitted that, the landlord/revision applicant himself has admitted in his cross examination that there was dispute in between himself and Vishwanath Tandale about ownership of the suit shop and suit was filed by Revision applicant against Vishwanath Tandale. It is further submitted that because of the said proceedings between Vishwanath Tandale and Revision applicant, the tenant deposited the rent in the Court, as tenant was aware about the said proceedings. It is submitted that respondent tenant had asked the landlord to prove his ownership before paying any rent, which was not amounting disclaimer of the title forfeiting the tenancy of these respondents over the suit shop. Therefore, according to the counsel for the respondent, order of Rent Controller has rightly set aside by the District Court. 16. Learned counsel invited my attention to para NO. 15 of the Judgment of the District Court and submitted that on the date, the suit for eviction was filed there was no rent due towards respondent-tenant. On the contrary, respondent-tenant has moved an application before Rent Controller for allowing to deposit the rent in the Court as there was dispute about the ownership of suit shop between the petitioner and Vishwanath Tandale. On the contrary, respondent-tenant has moved an application before Rent Controller for allowing to deposit the rent in the Court as there was dispute about the ownership of suit shop between the petitioner and Vishwanath Tandale. It is submitted that the tenant has paid rent and deposited the same in the Court on 15.04.1988 and 25.04.1988, after taking due permission from the Rent Controller. Learned counsel invited my attention the cross-examination of landlord where he has admitted that he has withdrawn rent deposited by the tenant. It is further argued that, thereafter tenant has paid rent every year and the landlord has received the rent till Diwali 2003 and he has not filed suit for recovery of rent. It is further submitted that thereafter tenant denied to deposit the rent. Learned counsel further submitted that, as directed by this Court, the rent is being deposited regularly in the Court. It is further submitted that, in para No. 19 of the Judgment, the District Court has rightly held that till filing of the suit there was no default in the payment of rent by the tenant and there was no rent due towards tenant on the date of suit. There was no case of the landlord to claim eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default and suit itself is without cause of action. 17. It is further submitted that in para No.23 of the judgment, the District Court has rightly held that the landlord has denied about dispute of ownership of the suit. The landlord has admitted in his cross-examination that tenant has deposited the rent till Diwali2003 in the Court and he has not filed suit for recovery of rent against the tenant and there was no dispute before and after filing of the suit about payment of the rent. It is further submitted that the tenant deposited the rent in the Court and said fact is also stated by tenant in his reply to the notice dated 17.03.1988. It is further submitted that there is no any evidence on record to prove that tenant ever denied or refused to make any payment of rent. It has also submitted that there is no dispute about payment of rent from 1982 till the date of suit. Respondent-tenant never denied or refused to pay the rent to petitioner, therefore, he is not willful defaulter. It has also submitted that there is no dispute about payment of rent from 1982 till the date of suit. Respondent-tenant never denied or refused to pay the rent to petitioner, therefore, he is not willful defaulter. It is further submitted that while filing affidavit before this Court the tenant has placed on record the receipts of payment rent to show that entire rent payment has been paid even during pending proceedings before this Court. 18. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Shrikrishan Oil Mill Vs. M/s Radhakrishan Ramchandra reported in AIR 2002 S.C.562 and submitted that if rent deposited by the tenant in the Court was accepted by landlord, subsequent petition by landlord for eviction of tenant on ground of default in payment of rent is not maintainable. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of S. Sundaram Pillai etc Vs. V.R. Pattabiraman reported in AIR 1985 SC 582 (1)and submitted that if entire arrears paid by tenant within notice period, in that case suit for eviction on the ground of past conduct of the tenant is not maintainable. LearnedCounsel further placed reliance on the judgment in the case of MotilalS/o Chandulal Darak Vs. Abdul Mazid S/o Taz Mahammad Kacchi reported in 1981 Bom.C.R. 817and submitted that the scheme of Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 is to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenant by the landlord. Learned Counsel further placed reliance on the reported Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of KannanVs. Tamil Tahlir Kalvi Kazhagam reported in 1998(5) SCC 21 and submitted that if there is dispute regarding person entitled to receive the rent as there was several claimant, as the tenant was having bonafide doubt he filed application for deposit of rent and if he started depositing the rent with prescribed authority held it amounted to valid deposit of rent under the law. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Naresh Kumar Vs. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Naresh Kumar Vs. B. Naglaxmi reported in 1998(5) SCC 331 and submitted that even if rent is paid after every two months or three months collectively and if the same was being accepted by the landlord without protest and there was practice between the parties to pay and accept the rent collectively for two or three months, therefore, it can not be said that there was willful default in payment of rent. 19. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the reported judgment in the case of ArunHarendra Deotale Vs. Narhar S.o Mahadeorao Pande reported in 2004(1) ALL M.R.536 and submitted that revision application is devoid of merit and same deserves to be dismissed. 20. I have heard learned counsel appearing for revision applicant and respondent at length. With assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, I have also perused the original record made available for perusal. Two main points, raised by the revision applicant i.e. landlord, are that, respondent-tenant committed default in payment of rent for period October, 1987 till March 1988 and therefore he is willful defaulter and secondly denial of ownership/title of revision applicant by respondent/tenant in respect of suit premises. According to revision applicant, the provisions of section 15(2)(i) and (vi) of the Act are attracted in the present Case. Provision of section 15(2)(i) reads thus 15.(1) ... (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied. (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the house, 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, or (ii).... (iii)... (iv).... (v).... (iii)... (iv).... (v).... (vi) that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord or claimed a right of permanent tenancy and that such denial or claim was not bonafide, the controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house, and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order, rejecting the application.” It is true that, above mentioned provisions are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present revision application. 21. The Rent Controller by his judgment and order dated 11.04.2005 held that respondent/tenant is willful defaulter. From perusal of the Judgment of the Rent Controller it appears that, the Rent Controller was suppose to decide the issue regarding willful default, however, the Rent Controller travelled beyond the said issue and also observed something about bonafide need/requirements of the landlord which was wholly unwarranted. From careful perusal of the findings recorded by the Rent Controller, it appears that none of the contentions of the tenant have been gone into by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller recorded the findings that since the tenant has not deposited rent from October, 1987 till March, 1988, therefore, he is defaulter and further he has committed willful default in payment of rent. On the aspect of willful default, the District Court framed specific point i.e. “Whether appellant/tenant is a willful defaulter?, the District Court has elaborately considered the arguments of both sides and also evidence brought on record by the parties. The District Court in para No. 8 of the Judgment observed that, the Rent Controller has passed decree on the ground of requirement of the suit premises by landlord for bonafide personal need. Such decree cannot be passed unless there is claim for the same, unless there is pleading of the landlord and unless there is evidence adduced by the landlord about his need and requirement. 22. In fact, such findings recorded by the Rent Controller was not within the scope of remand order by the District Court to the Rent Controller in the earlier round of litigation. Therefore, the District Court in impugned judgment came to the conclusion that any observation made by the Rent Controller about bonafide need/requirements are totally devoid of any substance and those were uncalled for. Therefore, the District Court in impugned judgment came to the conclusion that any observation made by the Rent Controller about bonafide need/requirements are totally devoid of any substance and those were uncalled for. The District Court noticed that there was dispute between the landlord and Vishwanath Tandale about ownership of the suit shop, and landlord Baburao himself has filed the suit in the Court against Vishwanath Tandale in respect of said subject matter, both Baburao and Vishwanath Tandale were claiming rent from the respondent/tenant and therefore, he moved an application before the Rent Controller praying therein for allowing him to deposit the rent in the Court, as there was dispute about ownership of the suit shop between revision applicant and Vishwanath Tandale. Such application filed by the tenant, was allowed, and tenant has deposited the rent on 15.04.1988 and 25.04.1988. 23. The District Court has also referred to the cross examination of the landlord i.e. revision applicant, and recorded findings in para No. 18 of the Judgment that landlord has admitted in his cross examination that, he has withdrawn the rent deposited in the Court by the tenant. Further finding is also recorded that tenant has paid rent to the landlord every year and the landlord has received the rent till Diwali 2003. 24. In para No. 19 of the Judgment, the District Court has also recorded findings that since the tenant has deposited rent in the office of the Rent Controller in March/April 1988 there was no any default in payment of rent. The District Court has considered in para No.22 of the judgment the point, “whether respondent/tenant is willful defaulter or not?” and after appreciating the evidence on record reached to the conclusion in para No.23 of the Judgment that the tenant-respondent is not willful defaulter. The District Court has referred to the Cross-examination of the revision applicant and also other evidence brought on record by the parties and reached to the conclusion that respondent herein i.e. tenant has not committed any default muchless willful default in payment of rent, and also reached to the conclusion that in the facts of this case landlord cannot claim any eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default in payment of the rent by the tenant. 25. 25. It is also recorded by the District Court that even though before 15.04.1988 no rent was paid continuously for six months, it cannot be styled as willful default, having regard to the facts of the regularity in payment of rent by the tenant before filing the petition for eviction and even after filing of the petition for eviction by the landlord. 26. A careful perusal of the judgment and order passed by the District Court would make abundantly clear that the District Court after taking into consideration the entire evidence placed on record, has framed necessary points for its determination and recorded clear and cogent finding on the basis of said evidence and reversed the findings of the Rent Controller holding that tenant respondent is not willful defaulter. 27. From careful perusal of the material placed on record, it is abundantly clear that prior to October, 1987, the respondent/tenant has regularly deposited rent and there is no dispute about the said fact. On careful perusal of the cross-examination of the revision applicant, it is crystal clear that, there was practice between the parties to accept yearly rent. It is admission of the revision applicant himself that he did file R.C.S.No. 1044 of 1983, against Vishwanath Narayan Tandale, before the Court. Therefore, reasonably it can be inferred that there was dispute between the revision applicant and Vishwanath Narayan Tandale about ownership and title of the suit premises, as it is apparent from the admission of the applicant himself that he had filed Civil Suit bearing R.C.S.No. 1044 of 1983 against Vishwanth Narayan Tandale and, respondent/tenant continuously paid/deposited the rent till September 1987. 28. It is the case of the tenant that in the month of November, 1987 even he received notice from Vishwanath Narayan Tandale asking him to deposit the rent with him. Therefore, in my opinion, when respondent/tenant is confronted with demand of rent by revision applicant, and also by Vishwanath Narayan Tandale, respondent/tenant has rightly filed an application before the Rent Controller for depositing the rent of the suit premises in the office of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller has allowed the said application of the respondent-tenant, and tenant has also deposited the rent amount in the month of April, 1988. Therefore, the rent for the month of October, 1987 till March 1988 was deposited by the respondent/tenant in the office of Rent Controller. The Rent Controller has allowed the said application of the respondent-tenant, and tenant has also deposited the rent amount in the month of April, 1988. Therefore, the rent for the month of October, 1987 till March 1988 was deposited by the respondent/tenant in the office of Rent Controller. The suit for eviction is filed in the month of June, 1988. On the date of which, the suit for eviction was filed by the Revision applicant, rent for the period of October, 1987 to March, 1988 was deposited by the respondent/applicant in the office of Rent Controller. Therefore, findings recorded by the District Court that on the date of filing of suit for eviction no any rent was due and payable towards the respondent/tenant is in consonance with evidence brought on record. 29. It is also admitted position that the said amount has been withdrawn by the applicant-landlord. It is contention of the revision applicant that, such rent amount is withdrawn only in the year 2003, and therefore it cannot be said that on the date of filing of suit rent was withdrawn. But fact remains that rent which was deposited by the respondent/tenant for the period of October, 1987 till March 1988 has been withdrawn by the landlord. I find force in the argument of the counsel for the respondent that on the date of filing suit, if rent already deposited and withdrawn by the landlord in that case no such petition for eviction can be entertained. 30. It is true that in the present case, on the date of institution of the application/petition for eviction by the landlord, he did not withdraw the rent. However, fact remains that prior to the date of filing eviction petition, rent for the period of October, 1987 till March 1988 was deposited by respondent/tenant in the office of the Rent Controller after taking due permission from rent controller to deposit the said rent. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the revision applicant on the reported judgment of this Court in the case of ShrikrishnaOil Mill Vs. M/s RadhakrishnaRamchandracited supra is wholly misplaced in the facts of this case. Moreover, the said judgment was assailed before the Supreme Court. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the revision applicant on the reported judgment of this Court in the case of ShrikrishnaOil Mill Vs. M/s RadhakrishnaRamchandracited supra is wholly misplaced in the facts of this case. Moreover, the said judgment was assailed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has taken a view that if there is yearly lease and landlord filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent, if rent is deposited by the tenant in the Court was accepted by the landlord, subsequent petition by the landlord for eviction of tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent not maintainable, as at the time of filing eviction petition landlord had no cause of action as arrears of rent was paid and accepted by him. 31. The Rent Controller in his judgment taken note of the fact that landlord in his cross-examination has admitted that respondent/tenant has paid rent from 1982 till September, 1987, rent was paid by respondent from Diwali to Diwali, and he had given such receipts of the rent to the respondent. There was litigation between Vishwanath Tandale and landlord, which was pending before Civil Court. Therefore, in my opinion, once landlord admits in his cross-examination that rent was paid by respondent Diwali to Diwali, the reasonably inference would be that there was practice between parties to pay and accept the rent from Diwali to Diwali. 32. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Naresh kumar Vs. B.Naglaxmicited supra held that if there was practice between the parties to pay and accept the rent collectively for 2/3 months, and therefore it cannot be said that there was any willful default in payment of rent, if the tenant was sending the rent every two months or three months collectively. 33. Another contention of the revision applicant/landlord that tenant/respondent has intentionally disputed the question of ownership/title of the revision applicant in respect of suit property is concerned, the landlord himself stated in his evidence that he did file Civil Suit bearing R.C.S.No. 1044 of 1983 against Viswhanath Tandale and dispute was in respect of ownership of the suit shop. Therefore, there is no question of attributing any intention on the part of the tenant that he disputed ownership/title of the revision applicant. Therefore, there is no question of attributing any intention on the part of the tenant that he disputed ownership/title of the revision applicant. It is clear from the facts which have come on record that respondent/tenant was confronted with situation that revision applicant and also said Vishwanath Tandale were asking him to pay rent for suit premises and therefore, he did apply to the Rent Controller for depositing the rent in his office. It is not in dispute that the Rent Controller did grant application of the respondent/tenant for depositing rent in the office of Rent Controller, and further he has deposited the said rent for the said period in the office of Rent Controller. 34. In the case of KannanVs. Tamil Tahlir Kalvi Kazhagam,cited supra the Supreme Court held that when there is dispute regarding person entitle to receive the rent as there were several claimants, as the tenant was having bonafide doubt he filed application for deposit of rent, and accordingly he started depositing the rent with prescribed authority, it amounted to valid deposit of rent under the law. Dismissal of the suit for default will not amount to default in depositing the rent. In such circumstances there was no question of eviction of the tenant and the landlord could withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant. (Emphasis supplied) 35. In the instant case also as stated earlier, the revision applicant and also Vishwanath Tandle were claiming the rent, and therefore, respondent tenant filed an application to the Rent controller and upon obtaining permission, deposited the rent in the office of the Rent Controller for the period October, 1987 to March, 1988. Therefore, in my considered view, there was no any default, muchless willful default in depositing the rent amount for the period of October, 1987 to March, 1988 by the respondent/tenant. The findings recorded by the District Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record by the parties. The Appellate Court is last Court or on facts no any perversity is noticed in the findings recorded by the District Court. 36. The provision of section 15(2)(vi) of the said Act, would be attracted, in case the tenant has denied the title of the landlord or claimed right of permanent tenancy, and that such denial or claim was not bonafide, then Controller can order directing the tenant to pay the rent and possession of the house. 36. The provision of section 15(2)(vi) of the said Act, would be attracted, in case the tenant has denied the title of the landlord or claimed right of permanent tenancy, and that such denial or claim was not bonafide, then Controller can order directing the tenant to pay the rent and possession of the house. However, in the facts of this case, said provisions are not attracted. I find considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that, scheme of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 is to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants by landlord. 37. In the facts of this case, the respondent-tenant was regular in paying the rent, even it is admitted position that from November 1982 till September, 1987 respondent-tenant continued to pay the rent. He deposited the rent for the period October, 1987 to March, 1988 in the office of the Rent Controller. Thereafter, he continuously deposited the rent in the District Court till October, 2003. Thereafter, also respondent-tenant continuously paid/deposited the rent. Therefore, in my opinion, the respondent-tenant had no intention to avoid deposit of rent. This Court in the case of MotilalChandulal Darak vs. Abdul Mazid S/o Taz Mahammad Kacchicited supra held that the scheme of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 is to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants by the landlord. 38. In the case of ArunS/o Harendra Deotale Vs. Narhar Mahadeorao Pandecited supra, this Court has taken view that merely denial on the part of defendant/tenant of plaintiffs title and ownership visavis suit property will not amount to disclaimer incurring forfeiture of tenancy. Though, learned counsel for the revision applicant strenuously contended that in the suit, which was filed by the revision applicant, the respondent-tenant has disputed the title/ownership of the revision applicant and therefore, the case is covered under section 15(2)(vi) of the said Act, has no force and said contention cannot be accepted. The District Court has taken into consideration the evidence brought on record and has recorded the findings that denial of the title of the landlord by the respondent/tenant was bonafide. The District Court has taken into consideration the evidence brought on record and has recorded the findings that denial of the title of the landlord by the respondent/tenant was bonafide. As stated earlier, the provision of section 15(2)(vi) of the said Act, would be attracted in case the tenant had denied the title of the landlord or claimed right of permanent tenancy and that such denial or claim was not bonafide, however, in the instant case as rightly concluded by the District Court, that respondent-tenant had no intention to question the ownership/title of the landlord. Therefore, viewed from any angle, in my opinion, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned Judgment and order passed by the District Court. 39. The District Court while exercising the jurisdiction vested in it, has not exceeded the same or it is not the case that jurisdiction vested in the District Court is not exercised by the District Court properly. There is no any illegality or irregularity committed by the District Court while recording findings. On the contrary, I find that findings recorded by the District Court are inconsonance with evidence brought on record by the parties. The District Court has not recorded the perverse findings. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, Civil Revision Application is devoid of any merits, same stands rejected. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of in the light of disposal of Civil Revision Application. Original Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.