HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.83 and 189 of 2010 Dated: 29-01-2010 Between: Naliveli Komuraiah (died), rep. by his legal representatives. … Petitioners And J.T.Badri Narayana (died), rep. by his legal representative. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.83 and 189 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions arise between the same parties and out of the same common order, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These revisions are preferred by the judgment debtors, aggrieved by the common order, dated 16th of December 2009, passed in E.P.No.70 of 2009 in CLSA.No.109 of 2007 and E.A.No.3 of 2009 in E.P.No.7 of 2008 in CLSA.No.109 of 2007. 3. The petitioners are tenants of the suit schedule malgi, whereas the respondent is landlord. Earlier, the parties have settled the matter before the District Legal Services Authority, Warangal, and the terms of settlement are to the following effect : “1. The rent for the premises in which the complainants are carrying on cycle shop business under the name and style of M/s.Satyanarayana Cycle Stores, Station Road, Warangal, is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) per month commencing from 1st February, 2007 onwards and payable directly to the respondent. The schedule premises issituated at H.No.8-9-20 situated at Station Road, Warangal and is bounded by East – Remaining shop of landlords, West – Shop of Sri D.Damodar, North – Remaining house of landlords and South – Station Road. 2. The English calendar month like February, March, April, is the tenancy months. 3. The duration of the tenancy is fixed for a period of two and half years i.e. from 1.2.2007 to 31.7.2009. On expiry of aforesaid lease period, the complainants have to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession of the same, in favour of the respondents or their family members/legal heirs without any demur or further extension. During subsistence of the said period the respondent or their family members should not make any attempts to evict the complainant in any manner from the lease premises except default in payment of rents. If the tenant failed to pay the rents any three months regularly to the landlords, they are at liberty to evict the tenants by filing the E.P. before the appropriate Authority. Even before expiry of said lease period if the complainant finds any alternative accommodation, they are at liberty to vacate the leased premises with one month prior notice to the respondent. 4. The respondents are permitted to construct steps to approach the first floor, with a width of 2'.6" on the Western side wall of the leased premises out of the total width of 8' facing Station Road without causing any disturbance in carrying out the business of the complainant and the work should be completed within 30 days from the date of this award. 5. …………….. 6. Both the parties agreed to continue the lease in the leased Premises without any grievance against each other by forgetting the earlier incidents. 7. If and in case, the tenant/complainant failed to honour the award to be passed by the Hon’ble Legal Services Authority, the landlords or their family members are at liberty to evict the tenants through Court process by filing E.P./Petition.” 4. On the ground that there was default in payment of rent, the respondent-decree holder has filed E.P.No.70 of 2009, whereas the petitioner-tenants have filed E.A.No.3 of 2009, seeking permission to deposit rents for the default period. The Court below, by the impugned common order, allowed E.P.No.70 of 2009 and rejected the application in E.A.No.3 of 2009. 5. In this case, it is to be noted that even according to the settlement arrived at between the parties, the petitioners-tenants were entitled to continue to be in possession upto 31.07.2009 only, and by efflux of time, even the said period is expired. Further, the reasons recorded by the Court below while allowing E.P.No.70 of 2009 and rejecting E.A.No.3 of 2009, are sound and are in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Court below. 6. Both the revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are granted three months time from today, to vacate the premises, subject to filing a written undertaking before this Court within a period of ten days from today to the effect that they will vacate the premises by or before 29th of April 2010. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th January 2010 Note : Furnish C.C. in one week. (b/o) ajr