( 1 ) THIS C. R. P. is filed by the unsuccessful tenant in both the Courts below. The respondents in this C. R. P. , the landlords, filed R. C. C. NO. 3 of 1993 on the file of the rent Controller-cum-Principal District munsif, Srikakulam, under Section 10 (2) (i) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act ), seeking the relief of eviction as against the revision petitioner herein-respondent-tenant in R. C. C. No. 3/93 from the petition schedule property and for delivery of possession. The parties would be referred to as the landlords and tenant for the purpose of convenience. ( 2 ) THE case of the landlords is that the tenant became a defaulter in payment of rents and R. C. C. No. 19/86 was filed, and later, the same was compromised and the said R. C. C. No. 19/86 was dismissed in view of the compromise, and accordingly, the landlords and the tenant entered into a fresh lease agreement under which the tenant agreed for a lease for a period of three years on a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- payable by 5th of every succeeding month and the lease deed was also executed on 31-07-1987 and that the tenant agreed to vacate the premises on 31-07-1990. However, the tenant was not inclined to vacate the premises by 31-07-1990 as agreed by him and once again approached the landlords for extension of time for another three years agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- for which the landlords accepted and agreed to continue him accordingly, but, however, the tenant had not paid rents from 01-08-1990 up to date i. e. , the filing of R. C. C. No. 3/93, in spite of repeated requests and even after the lapse of the extended three years the tenant did not vacate the premises, and hence, the eviction petition was filed on the ground of wilful default. ( 3 ) THE tenant had filed a counter admitting the landlord-tenant relationship, but denying all the allegations. ( 3 ) THE tenant had filed a counter admitting the landlord-tenant relationship, but denying all the allegations. The tenant had specifically pleaded that since the time of his father, they are the tenants of the landlords in respect of the petition schedule property and that they never committed any default in payment of rents at any point of time, and the compromise in the previous R. C. C. was also admitted. It was also pleaded that after execution of the lease deed on 31-07-1987, the landlords began creating problems and demanding more rents and the tenant has specifically staged that he is paying only a monthly rent of rs. 700/- and he has been regularly paying the rents by depositing the same in the court. In the Court of first instance, the respondent No. 1 in the C. R. P. the first petitioner in the R. C. C. was examined as p. W. 1 and Exs. A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R. W. 1 was examined. It appears from the record that the tenant was examined in part in chief as r. W. 1 and at the request of the learned counsel, the matter was posted to 29-08-1996 for further examination in chief of the tenant, but on that particular day the tenant was absent, and at the request of the counsel, the matter was posted to 03-09-1996. But, on 03-09-1996 also the tenant was called absent and therefore, the evidence on the side of the tenant was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. Hence, inasmuch as the evidence of the tenant was to be completed in chief, his evidence was eschewed. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the evidence of P. W. 1 and also exs. A-l to A-3, the learned Rent Controller- cum-Principal District Munsif, Srikakulam, by an order dated 30-09-1996 allowed the petition giving the tenant one month s time for vacating the premises. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant had preferred C. M. A. No. 18/97 on the file of the Rent Control appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior civil Judge, Srikakulam. The tenant also filed I. A. No. 5/99 in the said appeal under order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. , to mark certain documents as additional evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant had preferred C. M. A. No. 18/97 on the file of the Rent Control appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior civil Judge, Srikakulam. The tenant also filed I. A. No. 5/99 in the said appeal under order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. , to mark certain documents as additional evidence. The, appellate authority after detailed discussion had dismissed the C. M. A. No. 18/97 by an order dated 23-04-1999 granting the tenant three months time. Aggrieved by the said order, the present C. R. P. is filed. ( 4 ) SRI K. S. R. Murthy, learned Counsel representing the petitioner had contended that in view of the fact that no reasonable opportunity was given to the tenant and since his evidence was eschewed by the court of first instance, the appellate authority, in the interest of justice, should have remitted the matter to the Court of first instance with a view to give an opportunity to the tenant to adduce evidence on his side. The learned Counsel also contended that virtually the order of eviction made is just an ex parte order of eviction since reasonable opportunity was not given to the revision petitioner. The learned Counsel also had vehemently contended that the appellate authority had gravely erred in dismissing the application i. A. No. 5/99 filed by the revision petitioner- tenant under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. to mark certain documents as additional evidence. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Sri Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent had drawn my attention to the findings recorded at paragraphs 6 to 14 of the Court of first instance and also paragraphs 7 to 11 of the order of the appellate authority and had contended that both the Courts had arrived at the conclusion that the tenant had committed wilful default, which is a finding of fact, on appreciation of evidence, and hence, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to paragraph 11 of the impugned order and had pointed out that the appellate authority had dismissed I. A. No. 5/99 filed by the tenant under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. after appreciating all the facts and circumstances holding that the ingredients of Order 41 rule 27 C. P. C. had not been specified. The learned Counsel further contended that the court of first instance had justified in eschewing the evidence of R. W. 1 inasmuch as the learned Rent Controller had clearly observed that after number of adjournments the matter was poste d on 01-08-1996 for respondent s evidence on costs of Rs. 50/- and posted to 2-8-1996 and again on 02-08-1996 to 7-8-1996 and on that particular day as the respondent did not appear before the Court to examining himself, the Court closed the evidence of the respondent and posted for arguments, and on the very next day the respondent filed I. A. No. 34/96 to reopen to adduce evidence and the same was allowed conditionally on 20-08-1996, and on that particular day also, the respondent-tenant was called absent and the condition was not fulfilled and therefore, the evidence was again closed and the matter was posted for arguments, and again on the same day i. A. No. 38/96 was filed and the same was allowed on certain conditions, and accordingly on 26-08-1996 the respondent- tenant was examined in chief as R. W. 1 and at the request of his Counsel, the matter was posted to 29-08-1996 for further examination in chief of the respondent, but on that particular day again the respondent was absent and at the request of the counsel again the matter was posted on 3-9-1996. On 03-09-1996 also, the respondent again was called absent till 1:15 p. m. and accordingly in such circumstances only the evidence of R. W. 1 was eschewed. ( 6 ) HAVING heard both the parties and having perused the material available on record, the learned Rent Controller and also the appellate authority had recorded findings on the strength of the matter available, on appreciation of evidence that the tenant had committed willful default. P. W. 1 had stated that under what circumstances the adjournment was granted and after completion of the period of three years how the tenant had behaved and ultimately requested the landlords to agree for some enhanced rents and to permit him to continue the tenancy. P. W. 1 had stated that under what circumstances the adjournment was granted and after completion of the period of three years how the tenant had behaved and ultimately requested the landlords to agree for some enhanced rents and to permit him to continue the tenancy. But, however, the tenant had committed wilful default for sufficiently a long period from the year 1990 to 1993 i. e. from the date of filing of the R. C. C. As already stated supra, the evidence of R W 1 tenant was eschewed for the reasons recorded by the learned re nt Controller Hence/there is no evidence forthcoming as far as the tenant is concerned It is also pertinent to note that the party who had deliberately not cooperated with the Court in getting the chief and cross-examination to be completed, cannot turn wrong to seek that the Court had not given an opportunity. The landlords by the evidence of P W 1 and also Exs A-1 to A-3 had clearly established the grounds of wilful default The appellate authority had in detail discussed why the application IA No 5/99 filed by the tenant for additional evidence cannot be entertained In the light of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order 7 For the foregoing reason , there are no merits in the C R P and according the c R P is dismissed with costs However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petitioner-tenant is granted four months time to vacate the premises