JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - Challenge in this writ application is to an order of eviction made under section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967. 2. The case for the landlord is that he is the owner of plot No. 530 in Ward No. III of Cuttack Municipality which consists of two blocks, one on the northern side and the other on the southern side. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of the northern block in May, 1963 on a monthly rent of Rs. 130/- which was subsequently enhanced by mutual consent to Rs. 150/ per month. Again sometime in the month of March, 1967, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of the southern block on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. Since the landlord was serving outside Cuttack, he had authorised his natural father to induct tenants and collect rent and do other acts necessary for the maintenance of the premises in question. The application under section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act was filed on 6-6-1967 on the said ground that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and that since March, 1977, he had not paid the rent despite repeated demands. 3. The petitioner filed counter admitting the tenancy, but contending that rent was being realised from him at intervals according to convenience of the landlord. As regards the default in payment of rent since the month of March, 1977. It was alleged that after the rent for the month of March, 1977 fell due he approached the natural father of the landlord and offered to pay rent, but the latter declined to receive the same saying that a huge amount would be necessary for meeting some contingencies and that after arrival of the opp party No. 1 at Cuttack the rent for all the months would be collected at a time. It was accordingly contended that there was no wilful default on the part of the petitioner in the matter of payment of rent. 4. The learned House Rent Controller, on a scrutiny of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, came to finding that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter and that he had wilfully defaulted in paying the rent since the month of March, 1977. Accordingly he allowed the application for eviction. 4. The learned House Rent Controller, on a scrutiny of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, came to finding that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter and that he had wilfully defaulted in paying the rent since the month of March, 1977. Accordingly he allowed the application for eviction. On appeal, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Cuttack maintained the findings of the learned Controller and confirmed the order of eviction. 5. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that though he was a defaulter in the matter of payment of rent since March, 1977, he was not a wilful defaulter and hence the order of eviction cannot be sustained in law. 6. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. A finding of fact recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal on appreciation or the evidence cannot be interfere with in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless it is shown that it is perverse or based on no evidence. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. (See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishna and Others AIR 1964 S.C. 477 and Babu v. Dy. Director of Consolidation AIR 1982 S.C. 756 ). 7. In the present case, the landlord produced the counterfoils of rent receipts (Ext. 6 series) from May, 1975 to February, 1977 in order to show that the tenant was a habitual defaulter. Some of the counterfoils of the rent receipts show that payment of monthly rent was delayed for two to four months. In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the tenant was under an obligation to pay rent by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. Admittedly the tenant had not paid the rent from March, 1977 till 6-6-1977 when the application for eviction was filed. On a consideration of the counterfoils of the rent receipts and the two letters (Exts. 4 and 5) written by the tenant to the landlord, the authorities below came to hold that the petitioner was a wilful defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. On a consideration of the counterfoils of the rent receipts and the two letters (Exts. 4 and 5) written by the tenant to the landlord, the authorities below came to hold that the petitioner was a wilful defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. The finding is fully supportable on the oral and documentary evidence on the record. 8. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Deshmukh v. Shah Nihal Chand Waghajiphat Gujarati AIR 1977 S.C. 1985 , the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the landlord willingly accepted the rent paid at intervals without a murmur the Courts below erred in holding that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter. In that case both the learned Controller and the appellate authority came to the concurrent finding that the tenant was not a habitual defaulter, and it was also found that the tenant was not in arrears of a paisa when the proceedings for his eviction were commenced by the landlord. In those circumstances, their Lordships held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the authorities below. In the instant case both the authorities below have concurrently found that the tenant was a wilful defaulter. Admittedly the petitioner was in arrears of rent for three months when the proceedings for eviction were commenced. The petitioner's contention that he tendered the rent for the month of March, 1977 to the natural father of the landlord, but he declined to receive the same has been found to be false by that authorities below. The materials on the record fully justify the finding of fact that the tenant was a wilful defaulter. The order of eviction is, therefore, unassailable. 9. The writ application is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs. D.P. Mohapatra, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed