Judgment : These three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of three separate Rent Appeals between the same parties in respect of the same premises. Hence, they are heard and disposed of together. have heard Sri Shyam.S.Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri MVS.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent. The respondent is the landlord of the premises bearing No.15-9-466/3, Mahboobgunj, Ghansiram Building, Hyderabad. The premises is in occupation of the petitioner from the year 1967 wherein it has been carrying on wholesale business in sale of bicycles. To start with, the rent was Rs.130/-per month. The respondent has filed RC.No.544 of 2002 under Section 4 of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’), for fixation of fair rent. The said RC was disposed of, after contest, by the learned Rent Controller on 14-07-2005, by fixing the fair rent at Rs.2480/-and granting two months’ time to the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent. In spite of the expiry of the period of two months on 13-09-2005, the petitioner failed to pay the arrears of rent. Therefore, the respondent filed RC.No.326 of 2005 for petitioner’s eviction on the ground of willful default. During the pendency of the said RC, the petitioner filed RA.No.177 of 2005 against the order in RC.No.544 of 2002. In IA.No.977 of 2005 filed therein, the appellate Court granted stay of the order in RC.No.544 of 2002 subject to the petitioner depositing half of the enhanced rent. By Order, dated 03-12-2007, the RA was dismissed and cross-objections filed by the respondent were partly allowed enhancing the fair rent from Rs.2480/-to Rs.3224/-. The respondent filed RC.No.80 of 2008 alleging that the petitioner committed default in payment of fixed rent from December, 2002 to February, 2008. During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner filed CRP.No.4474 of 2008 against the order in RA.No.177 of 2005. This Court granted an interim order permitting the petitioner to deposit 50% of the fair rent fixed by the appellate Court. Eventually, the CRP was dismissed by this Court by Order, dated 30-09-2010. Alleging that the petitioner committed default in payment of rents from December, 2002 to September, 2008, the respondent filed RC.No.371 of 2008 for the petitioner’s eviction. All the three RCCs viz., R.C.Nos.326 of 2005, 80 and 371 of 2008 were disposed of by separate orders. Eventually, the CRP was dismissed by this Court by Order, dated 30-09-2010. Alleging that the petitioner committed default in payment of rents from December, 2002 to September, 2008, the respondent filed RC.No.371 of 2008 for the petitioner’s eviction. All the three RCCs viz., R.C.Nos.326 of 2005, 80 and 371 of 2008 were disposed of by separate orders. In all these RCs, the learned Rent Controller has, on the basis of the evidence on record, given categorical finding that the petitioner committed default in payment of rents for the period from December, 2002 to August, 2005, December, 2002 to February, 2008 and December, 2002 to September, 2008 and accordingly, ordered the petitioner’s eviction. The lower appellate Court, on reconsideration of the entire facts and evidence on record, dismissed the RAs thereby confirming the eviction orders passed in the RCs. At the hearing, Sri Shyam.S.Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the lower appellate Court has not properly considered the plea of the petitioner that in the face of the provisions of Section 11 (4) of the Act, the subsequent eviction petitions viz., RC.Nos.80 and 371 of 2008 were not maintainable. He placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Vinukonda Venkata Ramana vs. Mootha Venkateswara Rao and another 2001 (6) ALD 27 (FB) in support of his submission. Sri MVS.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that even if an application under Section 11 (4) of the Act was maintainable in RC.No.326 of 2005, the Act does not preclude filing fresh cases for eviction of the tenant for defaults. In Vinukonda Venkata Ramana’s case (1st supra), the question that was considered by the Full Bench was whether the defaults committed subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition could be a ground for eviction of the tenant. This question was answered in the affirmative. In my opinion, Section 11 (4) of the Act is an enabling provision and would not operate as a bar for filing subsequent eviction petitions on the ground of default committed during the pendency of the eviction petition. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. On the undisputed facts of this case, the petitioner committed default in payment of rents. 1. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. On the undisputed facts of this case, the petitioner committed default in payment of rents. 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner advanced another submission viz., that the petitioner has committed default in payment of fair rent only and that such a default does not constitute willful default as held by the Madras High Court in Nelson and another vs. P.Ranganathan Mudaliar AIR 1995 Madras 313. This Court in Rajender Prasad Agarwal and another vs. Mysari Anasuya and others 2006 (5) ALD 118 has held in categorical terms that when once fair rent has been fixed by the Court that would be the rent payable by the tenant and non-payment of which entails eviction of the tenant on the ground of default. I commend the view taken by this Court and prefer to follow this view to the view taken by the Madras High Court. On the admitted facts of this case, the petitioner committed default in payment of fair rent for the abovementioned periods. Hence, the lower Court was justified in ordering eviction. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has alternatively urged the Court to grant reasonable time for his client to vacate the premises. After hearing both the parties, I am of the view that since the petitioner is in occupation of the premises from the year 1967 carrying on wholesale business in sale of bicycles, it would be reasonable to grant one year time for him to vacate the schedule premises subject to the following terms: 1.Within four weeks from today, the petitioner shall file an unconditional undertaking in the Court of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, to vacate the premises within one year and pay all the arrears within two months; 2. In the event, the petitioner fails to file the affidavit or clear the arrears or vacate the premises within the above stipulated period as the case may be, the respondent shall be free to seek eviction of the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. As a sequel, CRPMP.Nos.3412, 3413 and 3414 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous.