JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. : The petitioners assail the judgment dated 6.4.1995 passed in H.R.C. Case No.17 of 1986 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sambalpur holding the petitioners as willful defaulters which was confirmed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur in H.R.C. Appeal No.1 of 1995 dated 28.11.1997. 2. The brief fact of the petitioners’ case bereft of unnecessary details is that the opposite party No.3 filed H.R.C. Case No.17 of 1986 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magis¬trate First Class, Sambalpur under Section 7(2)(i) of the H.R.C. Act, 1967 for eviction of the father of the petitioners on the ground of willful default in payment of rent from October, 1985 to May, 1986. The H.R.C. case was decreed ex parte against the father of the petitioners. However, the petitioners having come to know about the ex parte decree, filed misc. case No.1 of 1987 under Order-9, Rule-13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree. The ex parte order was recalled and the petitioners filed their written statement contending inter alia that on the death of their father, Gyaniram Agarwal, the tenancy got closed as the original tenant having died, the H.R.C. case is not maintainable against them. It was also contended that before the ex parte order was set aside, the payment of arrear rent was regularized in October, 1987 even after the death of Late Gyaniram Agarawal. It was the specific case of the writ petitioners before the H.R.C. Court that no time was fixed for payment of rent from month to month and rent was being paid sometimes at intervals of 2-3 months and sometimes at an interval of six months or even a year which was being accepted by the landlord, the opposite party No.3, without any objection and as such the petitioners pleaded that the landlord having accepted the rent at intervals without objection, cannot turn around and pleaded that the petitioner’s father was a willful defaulter in payment of rent and as such was liable to be evicted. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-House Rent Controller under the H.R.C. Act framed four issues as under: (I) Whether the petitioner is the Karta of H.U.F. and has locus standi to file this case ? (II) Whether the opposite parties are in occupation of the case house on monthly rent ? 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-House Rent Controller under the H.R.C. Act framed four issues as under: (I) Whether the petitioner is the Karta of H.U.F. and has locus standi to file this case ? (II) Whether the opposite parties are in occupation of the case house on monthly rent ? (III) Whether the opposite parties have made willful default in payment of rent of the case house by not paying the same within the stipulated time as provided in the H.R.C. Act ? and (IV) Whether the opposite parties are to be evicted from the case house and the petitioner is to be put in possession of the same ? 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-cum-House Rent Controller, Sambalpur on consideration of the evidence on record held that the H.R.C. petitioner is the Karta of his family and he was managing the case house and, as such, his petition for eviction filed against the opposite parties in respect of the case house is maintainable in law. On the question of tenancy of the writ petitioners, heirs of the original tenant, the learned House Rent Controller found from the evidence that they have admitted their tenancy of the case house by paying arrear rent on intervention of the Court. They had also filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order passed against their father and the same was allowed in their favour. The Controller further held that they had not raised any point that they were trespassers in respect of the case house after the death of their father in the execution proceeding. They were found to be tenants under the H.R.C. petitioner. Similarly, the learned House Rent Controller has recorded a finding that the writ petitioners and their late father were in arrear of rent in respect of the case house from October, 1985 to May, 1986 at the time of filing of the case. Even after filing of the case, the opposite parties-writ peti¬tioners were in willful default in payment of rent. The learned Controller observed that no document was produced in respect of payment of rent to the H.R.C. petitioner at intervals of three months, six months or even a year, as claimed and, as such, their contention that the rent was paid once in three months to six months cannot be accepted. The learned Controller observed that no document was produced in respect of payment of rent to the H.R.C. petitioner at intervals of three months, six months or even a year, as claimed and, as such, their contention that the rent was paid once in three months to six months cannot be accepted. The House Rent Controller found that the writ petitioners were in willful default of payment of rent of the case house and, as such, directed the wit petitioners, the tenants to vacate the possession of the house and to deliver its possession to the H.R.C. petitioner. 5. The tenants-present writ petitioners, carried an appeal to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur registered as H.R.C. Appeal No.1 of 1995. The learned appellate Court confirmed the findings of the House Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that the H.R.C. petitioner-opposite party No.3 having accepted the rent without any objection after the death of the original tenant and before the ex parte order was set aside, it cannot be said that they were willful defaulters, ignoring the fact that the learned Courts below were only required to decide whether the father of the original tenant was in willful default in payment of rent on the date of filing of the H.R.C. case. According to the learned counsel, both the Courts below arrived at perverse findings without bearing in mind the principle as to when the default would be willful. If the landlord accepts the rent for several months at a time on many occasions, the default, if any, on the part of the tenant would stand condoned. It is further contended that even assuming but not admitting that though nor¬mally a monthly tenant is under obligation to pay the rent from month to month, such obligation is subject to a contract to the contrary, which contract need not be reflected in a formal docu¬ment but can be spelt out from the conduct of the parties spread over a fairly long period of time. The learned counsel has re¬ferred to some decisions of this Court as well as of the apex Court on the question of willful default and contended that the default in order to be willful must be intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious with the knowledge of its legal conse¬quences. The learned counsel has re¬ferred to some decisions of this Court as well as of the apex Court on the question of willful default and contended that the default in order to be willful must be intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious with the knowledge of its legal conse¬quences. Reference has also been made to the decision in M. Naresh Kumar v. B. Nagalaxmi, AIR 1999 S.C. 547 that if there was practice between the parties to pay and receive rent at irregular intervals, there is n willful default even though normally month¬ly tenant is under obligation to pay the rent from month to month but this obligation is subject to the contract to the contrary. There can be no quarrel over the proposition of law and the ratio decided in the aforesaid case, but depends on the pleadings of the parties, established by cogent evidence produced in support of the plea that the rent was being paid and accepted by landlord at regular intervals. The learned Courts below have concurrent¬ly found that the tenants have failed to produce any document whatsoever in support of their case that rent was being paid at intervals of three or six months or one year at a time. The oral evidence adduced, as discussed by the Courts below, also does not support the claim of the tenants-writ petitioners that the rent was ever paid at intervals and accepted by the landlord. The petitioners have signally failed to prove by producing either documents or oral evidence to prove hat their father was paying rent of the house at intervals for 3 or 6 months at a time and that was being accepted by the landlord, which would show that non-payment of rent from October 1985 to May 1986 was not a wilful default as claimed. 7. 7. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below that the opposite party No.3 is the landlord, the tenants have defaulted in payment of rent and the tenants have also failed to establish the plea that they were not monthly tenants but they were paying rent at intervals, in the present writ petition such findings cannot be interfered with unless the petitioners show that the findings arrived at by the Courts below are perverse and no reasonable man on the materials available on record could come to such findings or that the Courts below have relied on inadmissible evidence or have not admitted admissible evidence on record. In the present writ petition, the petitioners have not shown any such infirmity in the judgments of the learned Courts below to justify interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by them. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. J. P. MISHRA, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.