( 1 ) THE unsuccessful tenant against whom an eviction order was made in R. C no. 533/94 on the file of the Principal Rent controller, City Rent Controller at Hyderabad, which had been confirmed in R. A. No. 13/98 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad, had preferred the present C. R. P. under Sec. 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience ). ( 2 ) THE said R. C. was filed by the original landlord, who died pending R. C. , on the ground of wilful default of payment of rent in relation to the schedule premises for4 months from May, 1994 to August, 1994. In i. A. No. 1245/95, dated 11-10-1995, the legal representatives of the deceased landlord were brought on record. ( 3 ) THE learned Rent Controller in r. C. No. 533/94 recorded the evidence of p. W. 1-3rd respondent in the C. R. P. , R. W. 1- the petitioner in the C. R. P. the tenant, R. Ws. 2 and 3 and marked Exs. A-1 and A-2 and exs. B-1 to B-9 and on appreciation of the evidence available on record, R. C. was allowed with costs granting 3 months time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant carried the matter by way of appeal r. A. No. 13/98 on the file of the Additional chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad and the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal and aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful tenant in both the courts below preferred the present C. R. P. ( 4 ) SRI Jandhyala Parthasaradhi, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-tenant had pointed out to the relevant findings recorded by the learned rent Controller and also the Appellate authority and would contend that the evidence on record had not been appreciated in proper perspective. The learned Counsel also would contend that at a particular time, the revision was allowed, but however, on an application made, the same was set-aside on the ground that the Counsel for respondent was not heard. The learned Counsel also would contend that at a particular time, the revision was allowed, but however, on an application made, the same was set-aside on the ground that the Counsel for respondent was not heard. Even otherwise, it would not alter the situation inasmuch as the specific stand taken by the tenant is that there is a practice of collecting rents through Rent collector and one Jameel Ahmed Khan was collecting rents, and at certain times, at irregular intervals and the said Rent collector did not turn up during the default period and hence, the same could not be paid and hence it would not amount to wilful default. The learned Counsel also pointed out that deposit of Rs. 25. 000/- had been with the landlord though no receipt had been passed in this regard. The learned counsel also pointed out that the non- examination of the rent collector would go to show that the stand taken by the tenant is well justified. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the other findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and would comment that the said findings cannot withstand the legal scrutiny. ( 5 ) PER contra, Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy the learned Counsel representing the landlords would submit that the fact that for a period of 4 months there was no payment of rent is not in serious controversy. The explanation offered by the tenant in this regard had been disbelieved. The learned Counsel also would submit that without hearing him though he had been on record the prior order was made and an application was moved and the said order was set-aside. The learned Counsel also would maintain that in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts and in view of the limitations imposed on this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act, the c. R. P. is bound to fail. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on Sri Gopisetty shankaraiah (died) by Lrs. , v. Ravi Co. in this regard. ( 6 ) HEARD the Counsel ( 7 ) THERE is no controversy relating to the jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant. The monthly rent of the demised premises is Rs. 160/- excluding electricity charges and a lease deed dated 2-6-1984 for 11 months also had been executed. , v. Ravi Co. in this regard. ( 6 ) HEARD the Counsel ( 7 ) THERE is no controversy relating to the jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant. The monthly rent of the demised premises is Rs. 160/- excluding electricity charges and a lease deed dated 2-6-1984 for 11 months also had been executed. As per the terms agreed upon, the tenant is expected to pay monthly rent regularly on or before 10th of each calendar month in advance and specific case of the original landlord and subsequently of the legal representatives is to the effect that the tenant had committed wilful default from May 1994 to August, 1994 @ Rs. 160/- per month. Certain other allegations also had been made. The tenant resisted the same denying the allegations. Specific stand was taken that he never committed wilful default and his main stand is that the landlord was in the habit of collecting rents at irregular intervals and further stand was taken that he paid an amount of rs. 25,000/ -. As already referred to supra, p. W. 1 was examined and Ex. A-1-Rent receipt Book and Ex. A-2-Lease deed, dated 2-6-84, were marked. Likewise, R. W. 1 R. W. 2 and R. W. 3 were examined and Exs. B-1 to b-9 were marked. Ex. B-1 is the acknowledgment; Ex. B-2 is the office copy of the notice, Ex. B-3 is the postal receipt; ex. B-4 is the returned M. O. coupon; Ex. B-5 is the cover; Ex. B-6 is summons; Ex. B-7 is the reply notice of Ex. B-2; Ex. B-8 is the office copy of notice; and Ex. B-9 is the acknowledgment. The evidence on record had been appreciated by both the Courts below and a finding had been recorded that wilful default had been committed by the tenant during the relevant period and ultimately granted the relief of eviction. The appellate Authority after framing the point for consideration at para 9, discussed the evidence available on record in detail at para 10 and confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller. On a careful scrutiny of the reasons recorded by both the learned rent Controller and also the Appellate authority, this Court is satisfied that all the aspects had been taken into consideration and clear findings had been recorded. It is needless to say that these are concurrent findings. On a careful scrutiny of the reasons recorded by both the learned rent Controller and also the Appellate authority, this Court is satisfied that all the aspects had been taken into consideration and clear findings had been recorded. It is needless to say that these are concurrent findings. Reliance also was placed Sri gopisetty Shankaraiah (died) by Lrs. , v. Ravi co. (1st referred supra ). ( 8 ) IN the light of the findings recorded in detail by both the Courts below, this Court is satisfied that the said findings relating to wilful default need not be disturbed by this revisional Court and accordingly the said findings are hereby confirmed. The C. R. P. is accordingly hereby dismissed. No costs. However, the revision petitioner-tenant is granted four months time to vacate the premises.