( 1 ) THE unsuccessful tenant in both the courts below is the revision petitioner. The present revision petition is filed under section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as the Act for brevity ). The landlord is the respondent in this civil revision petition. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in rcc. No. 234 of 1984, as landlord and tenant. ( 2 ) THE landlord filed RCC No. 234 of 1984 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, vijayawada, against the tenant seeking the relief of eviction on the ground that the tenant neither tendered nor paid the rents for the months from April to July, 1984, in spite of the demands and committed willful default. The tenant had taken the petition schedule godown on a rent of Rs. 300. 00 per month, the tenancy is for month to month and the rent is payable on every first of the calendar month. The tenant had taken the schedule premises for his business purpose, which is being carried on in the name and style of "vijaya Trading Company". ( 3 ) THE tenant had denied all the allegations and taken the stand that the landlord is a resident of Rajahmundry and he used to collect the rents through his clerk as and when he pleased to do so and subsequently the landlord used to collect the rents through his brother s son, by name vasu and the said Vasu demanded the tenant in the second week of May, 1984 for abnormal enhancement from Rs. 300 to 600. 00 for which the partner of the Vijaya trading Company, Nalam Laxmaiah was not agreeable, he also expressed to the said vasu for fair and reasonable enhancement of rent and the said Vasu told that he would consult the landlord and let him know subsequently and would collect the rents after settlement. RWs. 2 and 3 also were present at that time. Subsequent to the receipt of the summons only, the tenant, laxmaiah came to know that he was mislead and misrepresented with ulterior intention to create a ground for default. RWs. 2 and 3 also were present at that time. Subsequent to the receipt of the summons only, the tenant, laxmaiah came to know that he was mislead and misrepresented with ulterior intention to create a ground for default. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioner-landlord, the landlord examined himself as P. W. 2 and examined one Vallabha Vyas as P. W. 1 on his behalf and on behalf of the respondent, the tenant, Nalam Laxmaiah, a partner of the Vijaya Trading Company was examined as R. W. 1 and the other persons who was alleged to be present at the time of discussion for settlement, Juluru janardhana Rao and Mamidi Venugopala rao were examined as R. Ws. 2 and 3. ( 5 ) THE learned Rent Controller after elaborate discussion, at paragraphs 5 to 9 of the order, had arrived at the conclusion that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of the rents for the period from april to July, 1984 and hence the tenant is liable to be evicted. ( 6 ) THE tenant aggrieved by the said order had preferred RCCMA. No. 258 of 1998 on the file of the learned Principal Senior civil Judge, Vijayawada-cum-Appellate authority under the Act and the appellate authority framed the following points for consideration. (i) Whether the appellant committed default in payment of rents from april to July, 1984? (ii) Whether the appellant - tenant had in fact paid the advance of rs. 1,800. 00 at the time of entering into lease on 1-7-78? If that amount is adjusted towards the arrears of rent, the default committed by the appellant-tenant in payment of rents from April, 1984 to July, 1984 cannot be treated as wilful default? ( 7 ) THE appellate authority after detailed discussion in paragraphs 10 and 11 of its order ultimately found both the points in favour of the landlord. Hence it confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same the present civil revision petition is filed by the tenant. ( 8 ) SRI K. V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant had drawn my attention to the day book for the year 1978-79 and the entries in Ex. A-1 at page 173. These Exs. A-1 and A-2, which could have been marked as Exs. B-1 and b-2 were marked as Exs. ( 8 ) SRI K. V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant had drawn my attention to the day book for the year 1978-79 and the entries in Ex. A-1 at page 173. These Exs. A-1 and A-2, which could have been marked as Exs. B-1 and b-2 were marked as Exs. A-1 and A-2, most probably because the documents were marked at the appellate stage, on behalf of the appellant. The documents were marked through Sri Nalam Laxmaiah, who is shown as P. W. 1 and in fact in the rent control proceedings he is R. W. 1. ( 9 ) BE that as. it may, the learned Counsel had drawn my attention that I. A. No. 958 of 1998 was filed in RCCMA. No. 258 of 1998 on the file of the appellate authority seeking permission to raise a plea to that effect that the tenant had paid advance amount to the landlord and the amount of Rs. 1,800. 00 is sufficient for arrears of rent claimed in the eviction petition and hence in such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is wilful default. The learned Counsel also contended that the appellate authority had not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence it is a fit matter, where the case has to be remitted to the learned appellate authority for proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. ( 10 ) SRI M. S. K. Sastry, learned Senior counsel representing Sri M. V. Suresh, the learned Counsel on record had made the following submissions: The mere fact that the appellate authority had allowed the application for amendment permitting the tenant to raise the plea of advance is of no consequence. The learned Counsel while drawing my attention to the relevant paragraphs of the impugned order and also the order of the learned appellate authority- had contended that clear findings had been recorded on the question of wilful default by both the Courts below and as such the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of the evidence cannot be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act. ( 11 ) HEARD both the sides and perused the material available on record. ( 12 ) THE crucial and main submission which had been strenuously urged by sri Bhanu Prasad is that in view of exs. ( 11 ) HEARD both the sides and perused the material available on record. ( 12 ) THE crucial and main submission which had been strenuously urged by sri Bhanu Prasad is that in view of exs. A-1 and A-2 marked at the appellate stage, it is clear that an advance amount of rs. 1,880. 00 (sic 1800) is lying with the landlord and if this amount is taken into consideration there is no wilful default at all. In fact, the appellate authority had recorded detailed reasons relating to this aspect of the matter. The appellate authority while discussing the point No. 2, at paragraph-11 of the order, had categorically specified that:"according to the appellant-tenant he paid advance amount of Rs. 1,800. 00 to the landlord on 1-7-1978 on which date, the appellant-tenant took the petition schedule premises on lease. The appellant-tenant filed his counter in main Rent Control case in the year 1984. The appellant did not choose to being to the notice of his Court about the payment of the advance of rs. 1,800. 00. This appellant has examined again as R. W. 1 and filed one account book to show that he paid advance of Rs. 1,800. 00 on 1-7-1978. Ex. A-1 is the daybook for the year 1977-78 of the appellant firm Ex. A-2 is the entry at page-173 dt. 1-7-1978 showing the payment of Rs. 1,800. 00 by the appellant to the landlord- respondent. The appellant says that the landlord came to the shop where he paid the money under Ex. A-2 to him. Ex. A-2 entries were actually written by his accountant. He admitted in his evidence that he has also filed particulars of statement along with petition in RCC. No. 156 of 1987 in which it is disclosed that only two months advance was paid by the appellant-tenant to the landlord but not shown as Rs. 1,800. 00. He also admitted that he has not specifically mentioned in his counter about the payment of advance of Rs. 1,800. 00. So the entry in Ex. A-2 in regard to payment of Rs. 1,800. 00 has not been proved by the appellant as the scribe of it has not been examined by the appellant. 1,800. 00. He also admitted that he has not specifically mentioned in his counter about the payment of advance of Rs. 1,800. 00. So the entry in Ex. A-2 in regard to payment of Rs. 1,800. 00 has not been proved by the appellant as the scribe of it has not been examined by the appellant. Even though the account books were filed before the Income tax Department, no sanctity has to be attached unless the entries in the account books are proved by placing cogent and clear evidence. In this case, the particulars of statement was filed in the petition RCC. 156 of 1987 show, that only two months advance was paid by the appellant-tenant to the landlord but not Rs. 1,800. 00 as shown in Ex. A-1. So, the contention of the appellant-tenant that he paid rs. 1,800. 00 as advance cannot be said to be correct in view of the particulars of statement given by the appellant in a petition filed in RCC No. 156 of 1987 in which it is disclosed only two months rent was paid an advance. Under these circumstances, the entry ex. A-2 in the day book is fabricated for the purpose of this case. If really the appellant-tenant had paid advance of rs. 1,800. 00, he would not have kept quiet without divulging that fact in the main counter itself. There is no proper explanation forthcoming from the appellant-tenant as to why he kept quiet without divulging the payment of advance of Rs. 1,800. 00 in the counter or at least during pendency of rent control case on the file of the Rent controller. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why he mentioned two months advance, in particulars of statement filed along with the petition in RCC. 156 of 1987. So the conduct of the appellant-tenant shows that he is changing his version from time to time so as to suit his convenience. Under these circumstances/ I have no hesitation to say that Ex. A-2 entry in ex. A-1 daybook cannot be said to be correct and it is only invented for the purpose of this petition. "this clear finding had been recorded by the appellant authority, while the Court is not inclined to rely on Exs. A-1 and A-2 and believe the version of tenant in relation to the alleged advance amount of Rs. 1,800. 00 lying with the landlord. "this clear finding had been recorded by the appellant authority, while the Court is not inclined to rely on Exs. A-1 and A-2 and believe the version of tenant in relation to the alleged advance amount of Rs. 1,800. 00 lying with the landlord. It is also pertinent to note that this plea was not taken at the first instance, but it was raised by way of amendment at the appellate stage. This aspect also throws suspicion on the alleged payment of Rs. 1,800. 00 by way of advance, as contended by the tenant. ( 13 ) HAVING perused the clear findings recorded at paragraphs 10 and 11 of the order of the appellate authority, I am convinced that both the Courts below had appreciated the evidence available on record in proper perspective and had recorded findings relating to the ground of wilful default. These findings are the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below based on evidence. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner was unable to point out any perversity or any other infirmity, except strongly urging the point relating to the advancement of rs. 1,800. 00 lying with the landlord, which was disbelieved for the reasons clearly explained by the appellate authority. ( 14 ) IN the said circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and accordingly it is dismissed. However, since the premises is being utilized by the tenant for non- residential purpose, in the interest of justice, the tenant is granted six months time for vacation of the premises. ( 15 ) THE civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.