THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 309 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 30.12.2010 in E.P.No.11 of 2010 in R.C.No.394 of 2002 passed by the II- Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the Rent Controller had issued warrant of eviction against the petitioners. The petitioners are tenants and the respondents are the landlords. The respondents-landlords filed E.P.No.11 of 2010 seeking eviction of petitioners-tenants from the petition schedule premises. This Court, by order dated 21.07.2010 in Civil Revision Petition No.5025 of 2009, has set aside the Order of Eviction made by the II-Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in E.P.No.11 of 2010 in R.C.No.394 of 2002. Subsequently, this Court passed orders on 22.10.2010 extending the time for vacating the petition schedule premises, by one week. Admittedly, there was no further extension of time. Accordingly, E.P.No.11 of 2010 was filed and the order of the rent controller, confirmed by this court, was executed. The only contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that this Court, in CRP No.5025 of 2009, while setting aside the orders of the courts below observed that the order of the courts below is not in accordance with law and in view of same, the lower Court ought not to have passed eviction orders in E.P.No.11 of 2010 filed by the respondents. Now, the only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any merits in this revision. It is not in dispute that this Court, while disposing of the CRP No.5025 of 2009, categorically held as follows. “Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the judgments of both the Courts below. However, in the circumstances of the case, three (03) months time from today is granted to the respondent for evicting and handing over the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the landlord. There shall be no order as to costs.” This makes it very clear that the tenant was granted only three months time for vacating the premises; which means, the version of the landlord was upheld and the version of the tenant was rejected by this Court. After expiry of that period, E.P.No.11 of 2010 was filed; after which, one week’s time was granted from 22.07.2010 to the petitioners herein/tenants to vacate the premises. Admittedly, no further extension of time was granted by this Court. Therefore, there was no stay. Of course, due to some clerical mistake, it was mentioned in the order that the CRP is allowed, setting aside the judgments of both the courts below. No party can take advantage of a clerical mistake or a typographical error in any order. The order passed by any court has to be read in its entirety, and its result portion has to be ascertained after considering the entire order. By picking one or two sentences, the purport and the dictum of the order cannot be decided. The executing court was perfectly justified in passing the eviction orders. I do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the orders passed by the Rent Controller. There are no merits in this revision. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, CRP MP No.440 of 2011 filed for temporary injunction; and CRP MP No.441 of 2011 filed for directing the respondents-landlords to handing over the physical possession of the petition schedule property, also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR 09th September, 2011 KSM