Judgment : The petitioner is a tenant in respect of premises bearing No.6-3-639/640 of Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Originally, he was tenant of Smt. Fareeda, since the year 1979. The respondent herein issued a notice, dated 20.07.1993, to the petitioner, stating that the property in question was purchased by them, on 24.01.1992, and thereby, the tenancy stood attorned. The petitioner states that when he verified from the landlady, she flatly denied the execution of any sale deed and faced with the situation, he filed R.C.No.689 of 1993 before the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Section 9(3) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. On the strength of the orders passed therein, he continued to deposit the rents to the credit of the RC. The respondent filed O.S.No.1956 of 1997 in the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioner from the premises. On a plea raised by the petitioner, that the rent is only Rs.1000/-, per month, and the suit is not maintainable, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Thereupon, the respondent filed R.C.282 of 2004 in the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioner from the premises. Initially, two grounds, viz., bona fide requirement of the premises and acts of nuisance, were pleaded. Thereafter, grounds of denial of title and wilful default were also pleaded. The petitioner opposed the RC by filing a counter and denying all the grounds pleaded by the respondent. Through its order, dated 26.07.2010, the Rent Controller directed eviction of the petitioner, on the grounds of denial of title and wilful default. The petitioner filed R.A.No.330 of 2010 in the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed, on 02.12.2011. Hence, this revision petition. Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the view taken by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, on the questions of denial of title and wilful default in payment of rents, are untenable and contrary to evidence. He contends that the very fact that the petitioner had filed R.C.No.689 of 1993 duly impleading the respondent as well as the original landlady discloses his bona fide, in the context of payment of rents and the doubt expressed by the petitioner, as to denial of title, cannot be said to be a mala fide. He contends that the very fact that the petitioner had filed R.C.No.689 of 1993 duly impleading the respondent as well as the original landlady discloses his bona fide, in the context of payment of rents and the doubt expressed by the petitioner, as to denial of title, cannot be said to be a mala fide. He submits that the rents were being deposited to the credit of R.C.No.689 of 1993 and there was no wilful default at all. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that soon after the property was purchased in January, 1992, the petitioner was orally informed to pay the rent and when he persistently refused, a notice was issued on 20.07.1993. He contends that the plea of the petitioner, as to the denial of execution of sale deed by the original landlady, is not borne out by record. He submits that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have examined the matter from the corrective perspective and recorded concurrent findings and that the same do not warrant interference. The respondents filed eviction petition by pleading as many as four grounds. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and EXs.A.1 to A.9 were filed. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were filed. Out of the four grounds pleaded by the respondent, the Rent Controller negatived two of them, viz., bona fide requirement and acts of nuisance. However, he held that the denial of title of the respondent by the petitioner was not bona fide and that there was wilful default in payment of rent. These findings were upheld by the lower Appellate Court. Extensive arguments are advanced on the question of denial of title. The petitioner contends that soon after receiving the notice, marked as Ex.A.5, he instituted R.C.No.689 of 1993, duly impleading the respondent as well as the original landlady and continued to pay the rent. That development may be a factor to suggest that the petitioner was not particular, in denying the title of the respondent. However, at least when the respondent filed O.S.No.1956 of 1997, he ought to have realized that the respondent has acquired the property and is pursuing the remedies for recovery of rent and eviction. It is not as if the original landlady communicated anything to the petitioner in writing. However, at least when the respondent filed O.S.No.1956 of 1997, he ought to have realized that the respondent has acquired the property and is pursuing the remedies for recovery of rent and eviction. It is not as if the original landlady communicated anything to the petitioner in writing. Further, she did not make any attempt to withdraw the rents, deposited to the credit of R.C.No.689 of 1993. These developments were sufficient to convince the petitioner to recognize the respondent as the landlord. However, he was very persistent and just did not care to recognize the respondent as landlady. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court cannot be found fault with. The next ground is wilful default in payment of rent. Time and again this Court held that the mere deposit of the amount to the credit of R.C.No.689 of 1993, would not take away the liability of a tenant to be evicted. Further, the record does not disclose that the petitioner has paid rents, even to the landlady, till he received the notice in Ex.A.5. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. A request is made on behalf of the petitioner that adequate time may be granted for vacating the premises. The request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, time is granted till 01.05.2013, subject to deposit of arrears of rent within a period of four weeks from today, and payment of rents, on or before 10th of every month, commencing from October, 2012. He shall also file an undertaking within a period of one week from today, to the effect that he will put the respondent in possession of the premises on or before 1st of May, 2013. The miscellaneous petition filed in this civil revision petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.