THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5406 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), is directed against the order, dated 16.11.2011 in E.P.No.264 of 2010 in O.S.No.124 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, whereunder and whereby, a delivery warrant was directed to be issued to deliver vacant possession of the Execution Petition scheduled property to the respondent/decree holder by 15.12.2011. 2. O.S.No.124 of 2005 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, and O.S.No.740 of 2004 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, were filed by the respondent/decree holder and the petitioner/judgment debtor respectively, against each other with regard to the Execution Petition scheduled property. Since both the parties agreed to settle the matter, they filed common settlement memo in both the Suits. In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, a common award was passed by the Lok Adalat on 15.04.2006, dismissing O.S.No.740 of 2004 and decreeing O.S.No.124 of 2005, whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the suit schedule premises by 01.06.2010, in default the respondent shall be at liberty to execute the award by filing an Execution Petition. Since the petitioner has not vacated the premises, the present Execution Petition was filed by the respondent for delivery of vacant possession of the petition schedule premises. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor contended that the award of Lok Adalat has not been signed by the two other members of the panel i.e., Senior Advocate and Social Worker, as required under law; that after passing the consent award, the respondent/decree holder orally permitted the petitioner to continue in the petition scheduled premises up to June, 2015; that therefore, the executing Court ought not have ordered for delivery of the petition scheduled premises; and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder contended that the award of the Lok Adalat has become final; that there is no such oral understanding between the respondent and the petitioner to continue the petitioner up to June, 2015; that with a view to avoid vacating the premises in question, the present plea has been set up by the petitioner and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 5. The consent award was passed by the Lok Adalat on 15.04.2006, whereby the petitioner undertook to vacate the premises in question by 01.06.2010 and in default, the respondent shall be at liberty to execute a warrant by filing an Execution Petition. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for further extension of time to vacate the premises. Since the petitioner has committed default in vacating the premises in question, the respondent filed the present Execution Petition. The executing Court upon considering the material on record allowed the Execution Petition and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises in question by 15.12.2011. It is the contention of the petitioner that the consent award was not signed by the two other members of the panel i.e., Senior Advocate and Social Worker. When the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of him before the Lok Adalat signed on the settlement, now the petitioner cannot turn round and say that it was not signed by the two other persons of the panel. Hence, the contention of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 6. With regard to the acceptance of oral tenancy, having litigating the matters for years together, if really the respondent accepted the oral tenancy, the petitioner should have obtained lease deed for continuation. In view of the specific undertaking given by the petitioner that he will not ask for extension of time, the oral extension of lease as set up by the petitioner is nothing but to protract the proceedings. Hence, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 7. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner is in possession of the premises in question by running a tiffin centre from 1983 onwards. So, he requires some reasonable time for vacating the premises in question, in pursuance of the impugned order, so as to enable him to secure a suitable and alternative accommodation for the purpose of running small hotel business. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner shall vacate the premises in question on or before 12.02.2012. If this order has not been complied with, the execution proceedings shall be given effect. It is, however, made clear that no further extension of time would be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J December 12, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Dated: 12.12.2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5406 OF 2011 Between: Sri K. Narayana ..... PETITIONER AND Smt. P. Rajeswari ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5406 OF 2011 December 12, 2011 MD