THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.1964 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a tenant of premises bearing No.21-1-639 and 681, Rikabgunj, Hyderabad, owned by the respondents. The respondents filed R.C.No.433 of 2001 in the Court of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner committed default in payment of rents from June 1998 onwards. The petitioner opposed the same, by stating that he was regularly paying the rents, and when the respondents refused to receive the rents, he filed R.C.No.660 of 1998. The trial Court allowed the R.C., through order dated 28-08-2004. The petitioner filed R.A.No.259 of 2004 against the order of eviction. The appeal was dismissed on 17-01-2008. Hence this revision. Heard Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Manjiri S Ganu, learned counsel for the respondents. The tenancy in respect of the premises commenced in the year 1996. The only ground urged by the respondents, while seeking eviction of the petitioner is, that, there was default in payment of rents for the months of May, June and July, 1998. The defence offered by the petitioner was that the rents were being paid regularly and the respondents did not issue receipt for the period referred to above. It was also mentioned that, when the rents were not being received, R.C.No.660 of 1998 was filed under Section 8(5) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking permission of the Rent Controller, to deposit the rents. If the tenant had committed default for certain period, the mere fact that at a subsequent stage he filed application under Section 8(5) of the Act does not wipe away the consequences. Except stating that the respondents refused to issue the receipts, even after receiving rents, the petitioner did not substantiate that contention. The Rent Controller and the lower Appellate Court have taken into account the proceedings initiated by the respondents, as regards the other premises also, pleading the same ground. Unless it is proved that the rents were paid, the petitioner cannot avoid the consequences, provided for under the Act. The trial Court and lower Appellate Court have examined the matter in detail, with reference to the decided cases, particularly, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. DESHMUKH v. SHAH NAHAL CHAND[1] and RASHIKLAL v. SHAH GOKULDAS[2]. It hardly needs any mention that whenever the plea of default in payment of rents is raised, the burden to disprove the same rests upon the tenant. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner failed to discharge that burden. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a request for grant of reasonable time for his client to vacate the premises. The request is opposed by the respondents. Having regard to the fact that the premises are non-residential in nature, this Court is of the view that reasonable time deserves to be given to the petitioner, for enabling him to secure alternative premises. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed, by granting six months time from today, to the petitioner, to vacate the premises, subject to his filing an undertaking before the Rent Controller, within six weeks from today, to the effect that he shall put the respondents vacant possession of the premises, by 15th February, 2011, and that he continues to pay the rents regularly. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. 06-08-2010. KO [1] AIR 1977 SC 1985 [2] AIR 1989 SC 920