THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4457 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioners-appellants filed this revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 03.09.2007 in R.C.A.No.14 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Appellate Controller-cum- Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in setting aside the order dated 07.09.2006 in R.C.C.No.12 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners are tenants of a non-residential premises at a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. It is alleged that the petitioners committed default to pay the rent from November 1999 to March 2001. The case of the petitioners before the Rent Controller is that the respondent-landlord, who is normally resident of Visakhapatnam, comes to Kakinada for collecting rents and therefore, any such payment being made with a gap would not be attributed against the petitioners to determine as default nor it amounts to any willful default. The petitioners are ready and willing to pay and discharge their liability towards rents. Before the Rent Controller, the respondent examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. The second petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B12 were marked on behalf of the tenants. Initially, the Rent Controller did not find favour of the attribution of the landlord to call it a default or willful default on the ground that it is landlord alone who is coming on his own choice and collecting the rents. However, on further appeal, the lower appellate Court by once again going into evidence and material on record and taking into account Exs.B6 to B12, for the period from 23.12.1999 to 04.11.2000, found that there exists dues for which there is no explanation. Having regard to the fact that the said finding of fact is squarely based upon the evidence and material on record and especially, there being no proper and acceptable version coming forth from the petitioners to dispel the attribution of the default or willful default thereof, there is no error in regard to the approach made by the lower appellate Court. Hence, I do not find warrant to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, time for vacation of the premises is fixed at six {6} months from today and the petitioners shall pay all the arrears, if any, and shall also continue to pay the monthly rent till they vacate the premises. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 26th August 2010 RRB