Judgment Heard. The matter was agreed to be heard finally at the admission stage. Rule. Rule is made returnable with consent of the parties. 2. The revision petitioners question the judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.164/2001 by learned District Judge-1, Kopargaon, holding the revision petitioner -Nilesh to be in arrears of rent and directing eviction from the suit premises by order dated 30th October, 2010. 3. There is no controversy as to interse relations of the revision petitioners to be the tenants and respondent to be a landlord of the suit premises, as Natwarlal Shah (since deceased), husband of petitioner no.1 -Shashikala and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 6, was a tenant of the suit premises, i.e. One room of 16 X 16 ft. situated at Western side of City Survey No.318(part), Zende Galli, Kopargaon, Tq. Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar, at monthly tenancy of Rs.60/-. 4. The respondent alleged that the tenants/petitioners have committed defaults in making regular payment of agreed rent from 1st January, 1985 to 31st December, 1989 for 31 months, amounting to Rs. 1,860/-, and as such, they are defaulters and liable to be evicted from the suit premises. 5. A notice of demand was served upon the revision petitioners, claiming outstanding of Rs. 1,860/-with educational cess, compensation amount, notice charges of Rs.100/-and also terminated the tenancy of the revision petitioners. 6. Regular Civil Suit No.599/1987 (old) (338/1990 (New)) renumbered, on transfer, as RCS No.242/1993, was filed against the revision petitioners. On evidence, learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kopargaon by judgment and order dated 30th March, 2001 did not accede to the request of the landlord that the revision petitioners have committed defaults in remittance of the rent. In RCA No.164/2001, moved by the respondent, the learned District Judge-1, Kopargaon, reversed the findings and allowed the appeal by holding that the revision petitioners were in arrears of rent. The learned District Judge has analytically given the details of the rentals, even after filing of the proceedings. 7. The chart referred in the judgment illustrates that the revision petitioner, before or after decision of the suit dated 30th March, 2001, was required to be diligent in remitting the rent in the trial court. The payment dated 29.10.1998 of Rs. 1440/-, for the period from January-1997 to December-1998, was found delayed by 23 months and for each succeeding month. The chart referred in the judgment illustrates that the revision petitioner, before or after decision of the suit dated 30th March, 2001, was required to be diligent in remitting the rent in the trial court. The payment dated 29.10.1998 of Rs. 1440/-, for the period from January-1997 to December-1998, was found delayed by 23 months and for each succeeding month. The payment dated 30.11.1999 for the period from July-1999 to December-1999 was delayed by three months and for each succeeding month it was reduced by one month. The learned Judge has also observed, that the payment dated 23.4.2002 for the period from July-2001 to September-2002 was delayed by 8 months and for succeeding month the delay was to be reduced by one month. The deposit dated 5.6.2006 for rentals from January-2006 to June-2006 was again delayed by four months in the same tune. The deposit dated 6.11.2006 for the rentals of July 2006 to December, 2006 was delayed by three months and each succeeding month the delay was to be reduced by one month. The deposit on 8.8.2008 for January 2008 to August 2008 was delayed by six months and again succeeding every month's delay. The payment dated 8.6.2009 for September 2008 to August 2009 was delayed by eight months and for each succeeding month the delay was to be reduced by one month. There were further three such instances of delay in remittance of rent, which were delayed by eight months; four months and three months respectively. This position is not disputed by Mr. Nawandar, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, during the course of his submissions. 8. The trouble-shooting of remittances in rent at the behest of the revision petitioners being illustrative of the mindset, the benefits claimed in respect of Section 12(3)(b) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act) will not be available. 9. Basically, Section 12(3) of the said Act is mandatory and needs to be strictly complied by the tenant during pendency of the suit or appeal, as the case may be. 10. The word "regularly" in clause (b) of Section 12(3) of the Act has a significance of its own. It enjoins a payment or tender characterized by reasonable punctuality. 9. Basically, Section 12(3) of the said Act is mandatory and needs to be strictly complied by the tenant during pendency of the suit or appeal, as the case may be. 10. The word "regularly" in clause (b) of Section 12(3) of the Act has a significance of its own. It enjoins a payment or tender characterized by reasonable punctuality. The regularity cast may not be a punctuality, of clock like precision and exactitude, but it must reasonably conform with substantial proximity to the sequence of payment schedule expected from the tenant. 11. The contour of the conduct clarifies beyond doubt that the revision petitioners have brought themselves within the bracket of a chronic defaulters in remittance of rent, which was mandatory obligation caste for occupation of the suit premises. The basic arrears of rentals, for which the suit was filed, is up to 6th March, 1989, though may be covering the compliances, however the conduct of the revision petitioners, illustrated herein above, does not allow them to continue to occupy the suit premises. Consequently, I hold, the findings recorded by the learned District Judge questioned in this CRA, do not call for any interference. The Civil Revision Application lacks merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. 12. Heard. Mr. Nawandar seeks time of a year to comply with eviction decree. Mr. Bhandari opposes for such accommodation. Considering the plight of the revision petitioners as explained by Mr. Nawandar, time to vacate the suit premises is granted up to 30th September, 2012. The revision petitioners to give a regular undertaking to the satisfaction of Registrar of this Court up to 31st January, 2012, failure to give undertaking, it follows the eviction decree will further proceed. Costs to be paid by the revision petitioners.