G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE revision is filed against the order of the Additional Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in ra No. 356 of 1995, dated 26-8-1997 setting aside the order, passed in RC No. 270 of 1991, dated 5-4-1995 on the file of the iii Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the tenant. The respondent landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents by the tenant from 1-8-1979 onwards and also on the ground of bona fide personal occupation. It was the case of the landlord that the tenant has not paid the rent from 1-8-1979 and that he is liable for eviction from the schedule premises. It is also the case of the landlord that the premises is required for his personal occupation. The matter was resisted by the tenant. It was the specific case of the tenant that there was no default muchless wilful default on the part of the tenant and the amounts were being paid by him regularly. It is also the further case of the tenant that the accumulated rents are being adjusted towards Municipal tax and hence the allegation that he has committed wilful default is not made out. He also submits that the claim on the ground of personal occupation is also not bona fide and it is only with an intention to evict the tenant from the schedule premises, the said application has been filed by the landlord before the Rent Controller. ( 3 ) ONE witness was examined for the petitioner and Exs. P1 to P7 were marked and respondent examined himself in support of his case and marked Exs. R1 to R55 documents. ( 4 ) THE Rent Controller after considering the matter held that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant and bona fide requirement for personal occupation was also not proved. Accordingly he dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate Court concurred with the finding of the Rent controller with regard to the ground of personal occupation. But however, on the question of wilful default, he has set aside the finding of the Rent Controller and found that there was wilful default on the part of the tenant. The lower appellate Court concurred with the finding of the Rent controller with regard to the ground of personal occupation. But however, on the question of wilful default, he has set aside the finding of the Rent Controller and found that there was wilful default on the part of the tenant. Therefore, he passed an order directing eviction of the tenant by an order dated 26-5-1997. Questioning the same, the present revision has been filed. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant submits that the order of the appellate authority is wholly erroneous and contrary to law. As per the reply notice issued on behalf of the petitioner-tenant it was clear that there was a tacit permission to the tenant to make the payment of arrears of property tax, commercial tax and income tax. Therefore on the basis of the said understanding, the amounts are being adjusted from out of the rent payable to the landlord and therefore the question of wilful default does not arise in this case. He submits that when a notice was issued as early as in 1992 by the landlord, a reply was issued to the effect that the arrears of rents are being adjusted towards payments to various authorities and there was no denial on that aspect and that therefore no fault can be found with the tenant in not paying the rent. ( 6 ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was no such understanding which is borne out by the record and there is no such written authorisation permitting the tenant to make payments to the authorities towards the property tax arrears and also other payments towards the commercial tax and income tax. Therefore, in the absence of such an authorisation, it is not open for the tenant to make payments to the Government authorities. He relies on a decision reported in Vibhuhi Bhushan Deo v. K. S. Mohammad, 1994 (2) ALT 553, which states that the payment of property tax from out of the accumulated rents, amounts to wilful default. Therefore the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the revision is liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) I have heard the learned Counsel at length. Therefore the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the revision is liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) I have heard the learned Counsel at length. ( 8 ) THE only point that arises for consideration is whether the finding of the appellate Court that there was wilful default on the part of the tenant is sustainable in law? ( 9 ) THIS is a revision filed under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act, wherein the powers of the Court are wider than that of the powers under section 115 of CPC. Under Section 22, the propriety or otherwise of the order is also liable to be gone into by this Court apart from the jurisdictional issue. Admittedly the claim was made on two grounds viz. , (1) Wilful default and (2) Personal occupation. ( 10 ) AS far as the personal occupation is concerned, the Courts below held that it is not established. As far as the wilful default is concerned, the trial Court held that the wilful default was not proved. Whereas the appellate Court found that there was wilful default from July, 1985 to July, 1991. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner however submits that this finding of the appellate Court is not based on record and in fact payments were made towards the payment of property tax for a sum of Rs. 6,371/- in October, 1985 and this was not taken into consideration. Hence the finding that there was wilful default is not made out by any record. I am unable to accept this contention. The appellate Court has considered the contention of the tenant from point to point and from period to period right from 1979. The appellate Court basing on the documents upto Ex. R-43 categorically held that the payments were made to various authorities and that would not constitute wilful default on the part of tenant. But, however, from july, 1985 to August, 1991, the appellate court has categorically found that there was a wilful default on the part of the tenant. Para 11 of the order of the appellate Court clearly establishes that the wilful default is writ large. It is extracted below:"ex. R42 is the receipt dated 9-8-1991 showing that Rs. 6,129-60ps. was paid to the Municipal Corporation of hyderabad. The eviction petition was filed on 19-4-1991. Para 11 of the order of the appellate Court clearly establishes that the wilful default is writ large. It is extracted below:"ex. R42 is the receipt dated 9-8-1991 showing that Rs. 6,129-60ps. was paid to the Municipal Corporation of hyderabad. The eviction petition was filed on 19-4-1991. The tenant did not issue any notice to the landlord before paying Rs. 6,129-60 ps. to the Municipal corporation of Hyderabad. It shows that the tenant was not paying rent from July, 1985 to August, 1991. The tenant had to pay Rs. 16,650/- towards rent for the period July, 1985 to July, 1991. But the tenant paid Rs. 6,129-60. Still the tenant has to pay Rs. 10,520-40 ps. by 9-8-1991. The tenant paid Rs. 7,075/- by a demand draft dated 18-3-1992. The tenant had to pay Rs. 12,095-40ps. by 18-3-1992, but he paid only Rs. 7,075/ -. This clearly shows that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent even after filing the eviction petition. The respondent/tenant committed default in payment of rent from July, 1985 onwards and continued to commit default in payment of rent even after filing the eviction petition. Ex. R42 clearly shows that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from July, 1985 onwards. The payment of Rs. 7,075/- on 18-3-1992 shows that the tenant has been committing default in payment of rent even after filing the eviction petition. I, therefore, hold that the respondent/ tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from July, 1985 to february, 1992. Hence I answer the point accordingly. " ( 12 ) THE appellate Court clearly found that the arrears of rent from July, 1985 to july, 1991 would come to Rs. 16,650/-, but the tenant has paid only Rs. 6,129-60ps. and he has yet to pay Rs. 10,520-40 ps. by 9-8-1991. ( 13 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that an amount of Rs. 6,300/- was paid by him subsequent to working out the arrears upto July, 1991. Even assuming that he has paid Rs. 6,300/-, yet there is still the deficit of about Rs. 3,000/-, which is not accounted for and there is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming from the tenant. The conduct of the tenant appears to be that no rents should be paid to the landlord and on the other hand it should be adjusted towards payment of tax to the authorities. 6,300/-, yet there is still the deficit of about Rs. 3,000/-, which is not accounted for and there is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming from the tenant. The conduct of the tenant appears to be that no rents should be paid to the landlord and on the other hand it should be adjusted towards payment of tax to the authorities. In the absence of any specific instructions even after filing of the suit, the tenant is not permitted to make any payments either to the Municipality or the other authorities. Admittedly, the tenant is trying to justify his action by stating that the amounts were paid to the Municipality towards property tax. When the claim was made for eviction, it was the contention of the owner that no such instructions were given and it would not be appropriate for the tenant to make the payments to the Government authorities during the pendency of the eviction petition. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent fully supports the view. At no point of time the tenant paid the monthly rent to the owner right from July, 1985 and even prior to the filing of the eviction petition and he has been only adjusting the amounts on the terms of alleged tacit understanding between the parties that rents should be paid to the authorities. But from July, 1985 it was found by the appellate Court that the tenant has wilfully defaulted in payment of rents. Such a finding cannot be disturbed by this Court under Section 22 of the Act as I do not find any grounds to interfere with the finding arrived at by the Appellate Court. The conduct of the tenant itself shows that he has been paying the property tax only, but not the rent. The property tax is paid only once in 6 months but the rent is liable to be paid every month. The reasons for not paying the rent every month are not forthcoming. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the owner has not come into the witness box to depose the contentions or other issues raised in the petition. That would not make any difference in the eye of law inasmuch as the issue is being decided on the basis of the documents filed by the tenant himself. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the owner has not come into the witness box to depose the contentions or other issues raised in the petition. That would not make any difference in the eye of law inasmuch as the issue is being decided on the basis of the documents filed by the tenant himself. The wilful default is being resisted on the ground that the amount are adjusted by way of payments to the other parties and to that extent the burden which is placed on the tenant has not been discharged by filing the satisfactory documentary evidence to the effect that the accumulated rents were paid subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition. Under those circumstances, non- examination of the landlord would not vitiate the proceedings. Hence, 1 do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the appellate authority. ( 15 ) THE CRP is accordingly dismissed. However, three months time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. No costs.