THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP NO.5682 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 24- 10-2011 passed in RA No.236 of 2010 by the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 30-6-2010 passed in RC No.325 of 2007 by the IV Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The respondent filed the above RC seeking eviction of the petitioner on two grounds namely 1. willful default in payment of rents and 2. bonafide personal requirement of the premises in question to the respondent himself. To prove his case, the respondent herein who is a doctor, examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents Exs.P-1 to P-5 and revision petitioner herein was examined as RW-1 and got marked documents Exs.R-1 to R-12. The trial Court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence held that the revision petitioner committed willful default in payment of rents and that the premises in question is bonafidely required by the landlord for the purpose of starting his own clinic and laboratory and accordingly allowed the RC. This order was appealed against and the lower appellate Court also by dismissing the appeal confirmed the order of the trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned order passed by the Courts below. 4. On the question of willful default, it has come in evidence that the petitioner lastly paid the rent for the month of April, 2007 and thereafter there was no acceptable proof that he has paid the rents. There was no evidence also to show that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the grand father of the landlord towards security deposit. Even on the question of bonafide requirement, it was held that the respondent required the premises in question for running a clinic and laboratory. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the petitioner committed willful default and that premises is required by the respondent. This being a concurrent finding of fact, nothing is pointed out in this revision to take a different view than the view taken by the Courts below. The contentions sought be urged before this Court are in fact already raised and considered by the Courts below. 5. In the circumstances, the civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage itself. However, in view of the difficulty pleaded by the learned counsel that the petitioner could not get alternative premises immediately, the petitioner is granted six months time from today to vacate the premises in question and handover vacant possession of the premises to the respondent, subject to giving an undertaking to that effect and paying the agreed rents. No costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated: 23-12-2011 Nrg.