Judgment : C.R.P.No.5119/2011 arises out of the concurrent orders of the learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad (for short “the Primary Authority”) and the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Appellate Authority”) in R.C.No.596/99, dated 29-9-2009 and R.A.No.94/2009, dated 12-9-2011, respectively – the Primary Authority ordering eviction of the revision petitioner who is the tenant, and the Appellate Authority, affirming the same. 2. C.R.P.No.5430/2011 is filed against order dated 12-9-2011 in I.A.No.62/2011 in R.A.No.94/2009 on the file of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/tenant under Order XIII Rule 10 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") to summon the entire record relating to R.C.No.618/1990, on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 3. As noted above, the tenant of the demised premises is the revision petitioner in both these Civil Revision Petitions. The short issue that arises for consideration in C.R.P.No.5119/2011 is whether the concurrent findings of both the Primary Authority and the Appellate Authority, on the aspect of willful default, suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. 4. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of compromise decree in R.C.No.1506/1986 between the father of the revision petitioner, respondent No.1 and the husband of respondent No.2, the rent of the demised premises was revised to Rs.800/- per month from 1-10-1989. R.C.No.618/1990 is filed by the revision petitioner, under Section 8(5) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") seeking permission to deposit rents in bank and the same was allowed. In pursuance of the order passed in the said case, the petitioner was depositing rents in A.P. Vardhaman (Mahila) Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Eden Bagh, Hyderabad, upto February 1996 and with effect from 1-3-1996 the deposit of rents was discontinued. Alleging willful default of deposit of rents by the petitioner, the respondents filed R.C.No.596/99 for the former’s eviction. The petitioner has pleaded that as the respondents have suddenly closed the bank account in A.P. Vardhaman (Mahila) Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, in the month of March 1996, he could not deposit the rents. It is however the petitioner’s case that he continued to deposit the rents in bank account No.77 of the same bank, but he has not filed vouchers in support of his plea. It is however the petitioner’s case that he continued to deposit the rents in bank account No.77 of the same bank, but he has not filed vouchers in support of his plea. The learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and in the light of the settled legal position in N.D. Thandani (Dead) by L.Rs. AIR 2004 S.C. 495 = (2004) 1 SCC 656 and in Sugnibai and Shakuntala Vs Rafat Ali 2004(6) ALD 203 ,held that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rules 5 and 16 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (for short “the Rules”) and thereby has committed willful default in payment of rents. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming the above findings. 5. In N.D. Thandani (1-supra), the Supreme Court held that if a party chooses to follow Section 8 of the Act by deposit of rent, it will be mandatory for him to comply with Rule 5 of the Rules, according to which the deposit of rent under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed under sub-rule (4) thereof. Under Rule 16(1)(a) of the Rules, a notice of such deposit shall be given to the landlord. A Full Bench of this Court in Mohammed Izhar Ali Vs. Olive Founseca (Dead) by L.Rs. 2008(4) ALD 147 (F.B.), following the Judgment in N.D. Thandani (1-supra) held that non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules constitutes willful default by the tenant. 6. The Courts below that the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory procedure of the deposit of rents within the prescribed time and giving notice of such deposit to the landlord. Even though the petitioner has come out with a plea that he has got the vouchers showing the deposit of rent, he failed to produce the same. The petitioner has also failed to plead and prove that he was continuing to give notices of such deposits to the respondents. In the face of the above facts, the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, on the aspect of willful default, cannot be interfered with. C.R.P.No.5119/2011 is accordingly dismissed. 7. The petitioner has also failed to plead and prove that he was continuing to give notices of such deposits to the respondents. In the face of the above facts, the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, on the aspect of willful default, cannot be interfered with. C.R.P.No.5119/2011 is accordingly dismissed. 7. Sri Osman Shaheed, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the demised premises is in the occupation of the family of the petitioner from the time of his father and that the same is being used for running business. He submitted that the petitioner may be given reasonable time for vacating the premises. 8. Sri S. Balchand, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner has been litigating for a number of years paying a pittance of rent and that even arrears have not been paid to the respondents so far. Considering the fact that the demised premises is being used for business purposes in a very important area, I deem it appropriate to grant one year time to the petitioner to vacate the same, subject to the following terms: (i) Within one week from today, Mir Abid Ali Khan, representing the petitioner, shall file his affidavit before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, undertaking unconditionally to vacate the demised premises and handover the same to the respondents on or before 31-12-2012. The affidavit so filed by the petitioner shall be placed on record by the Registrar (Judicial). (ii)The petitioner shall deposit all the challans evidencing alleged deposit of rents before the Primary Authority within two weeks. On such deposit, the respondents are entitled to file appropriate application before the Primary Authority for receipt of the amount towards arrears of rent.(iii) The petitioner shall continue to pay future rents to the respondents, on or before the 5th of every month, till the demised premises is vacated and handed over to the petitioner. In default of compliance with any of the conditions by the petitioner, the respondents are entitled to seek execution of the orders under revision, in addition to initiating appropriate proceedings for violation of the above mentioned undertaking given by him. 10. In view of disposal of C.R.P.No.5119/2011 in the manner indicated above, C.R.P.No.5430/2011 has become infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed as such. 11. As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.Nos.7225/2011 and 7685/2011 filed in the respective Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as infructuous.