ORDER : B.S. Patil, J. This revision petition is filed under Section 46 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act') by the tenants aggrieved by the order of eviction passed on 1-4-2015 in HRC No. 73 of 2014 by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. 2. Petitioners herein are the tenants. Respondent is the landlady of the premises. She filed HRC No. 73 of 2014 under Sections 5, 27(2)(a), 27(2)(r) and 31(1)(a) of the Act seeking eviction of the tenants. 3. On perusal of the pleadings and the findings recorded, it emerges that father-in-law of the respondent-landlady had leased the premises in favour of the father of petitioners 1 and 2 one Mohammed Hafeezulla. The demised premises is a shop premises situated in the ground floor of the building which measures East to West 8 and North to South 10. On 3-7-2002, father-in-law of the respondent executed a registered gift deed in favour of the respondent-landlady. Thus, the respondent continued as landlady and father of the petitioner became a tenant under her. 4. Father of revision petitioners 1 and 2-original tenant died on 9-11-2008. Respondent had earlier filed a suit for ejectment in S.C. No. 978 of 2011 before the Court of Small Causes against petitioner 1 herein Mueen Pasha. In the said case, petitioner 1 herein filed written statement contending that he along with petitioners 2 and 3 herein, his brother and mother respectively had jointly inherited the tenancy from their deceased father Mohammed Hafeezulla and were carrying on business in the premises. However, the said suit was dismissed holding that the Rent Act was applicable and suit for ejectment was not maintainable. Thereafter, the landlady instituted the present HRC proceedings in the year 2014 under the aforementioned provisions. 5. The landlady urged that tenants failed to pay rent regularly. Therefore, she invoked the provisions under Section 27(2)(a) as well. During the pendency of the proceedings, arrears of rent in a sum of Rs. 1,35,650/- have been paid to the respondent-landlady. Therefore, the Court below has rightly not considered the grounds urged by the landlady under Section 27(2)(a) of the Act. 6. However, as regards grounds urged under Sections 5 and 27(2)(r), defence of the revision petitioners was that under an oral agreement entered into between themselves and the landlady, they were continued as tenants on payment of admitted rent. Therefore, the Court below has rightly not considered the grounds urged by the landlady under Section 27(2)(a) of the Act. 6. However, as regards grounds urged under Sections 5 and 27(2)(r), defence of the revision petitioners was that under an oral agreement entered into between themselves and the landlady, they were continued as tenants on payment of admitted rent. The Trial Court framed specific points for consideration and on the basis of evidence on record has found that after the death of the original tenant, his legal representatives-revision petitioners herein were continued as tenants and were liable to be evicted after the expiry of 5 years from the date of death of the original tenant. Defence taken by the tenant that there was a fresh oral agreement between petitioner 1-legal representative of original tenant and the respondent-landlady has been repelled. 7. Indeed, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlady in the previous proceedings instituted by the landlady in S.C. No. 978 of 2011, a specific defence had been taken by petitioner 1 herein Mr. Mueen Pasha that after the death of his father, he along with his mother and brother inherited the tenancy rights. Ex. P. 1 is the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in S.C. No. 978 of 2011. This stand taken by petitioner 1 makes it clear that on his own admission, tenancy rights were inherited by him along with other two legal heirs of deceased original tenant and that there was no fresh agreement of lease between the landlady and the legal heirs of deceased - original tenant. That being the position, it is not open for the tenants now to contend that it was not a case of inheritance of tenancy, but was a case of fresh tenancy created between landlady and the legal heirs of deceased tenant. 8. The contention urged by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that whatever be the admission made by petitioner 1 in the said suit, the stand taken by the landlady in the said suit wherein she had proceeded on the basis that there was a fresh lease and that even in the legal notice issued, no such ground was urged cannot be accepted because an admission is a best piece of evidence. Admission made in the pleadings before the Court at an undisputed point of time in S.C. No. 978 of 2011 wherein the tenant-petitioner 1 has taken a specific stand that they have inherited the tenancy rights has to be accepted and the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that in terms of Section 5 of the Act, tenants were entitled to continue only for a period of 5 years and not beyond that. 9. In addition, the Court below, based on the evidence on record has returned findings that bona fide requirement of the landlady has been established, inasmuch as she being a teacher wanted the premises for the purpose of conducting tuition classes for the children in the vicinity during evenings and holidays. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that such requirement had not been stated in the legal notice and was for the first time stated in the petition before the Court will not assume much importance, inasmuch as at the time when the legal notice was issued, the focus of the landlady was regarding the consistent and continues default committed in payment of rents and she has specifically stated in the legal notice that in respect of other cause of action, she reserved her right to proceed against the tenants. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Court below while allowing the HRC petition and directing eviction of the tenants from the premises. 10. The Court below has granted four months time while passing the order under challenge which expired on 1-8-2015 it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner 1 is getting married and the marriage has been fixed on 27-8-2015 and therefore, reasonable time may be granted to the petitioners for vacating the premises. 11. In the light of the submission of the Counsel for the revision petitioners, I am of the view that six months time from today has to be granted to vacate the premises, in the ends of justice. 12. In the result, this petition is disposed of in the following terms :- (i) Petitioners shall vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule premises on or before 12-2-2016 to the respondent-landlady without seeking further extension of time and without forcing the respondent-landlady to initiate execution proceedings. 12. In the result, this petition is disposed of in the following terms :- (i) Petitioners shall vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule premises on or before 12-2-2016 to the respondent-landlady without seeking further extension of time and without forcing the respondent-landlady to initiate execution proceedings. (ii) Petitioners shall continue to pay the admitted rent without committing default. (iii) Petitioners shall not induct any third party into the premises. (iv) Petitioners shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today incorporating the above conditions and undertaking to abide by the said conditions. In case, affidavit is not filed or any default is committed, it will be open to the landlady to execute the decree. (v) It is submitted at the Bar that arrears of rent in a sum of Rs. 9,450/- has been deposited before this Court. The respondent-landlady is permitted to withdraw the same. It is also submitted that two months arrears of rent is required to be paid covering the month of August. The said amount shall be paid to the respondent-landlady by way of DD within two weeks.