HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P.Nos. 4719 and 4720 of 2009 DATED: 25.09.2009 C.R.P.No.4719 of 2009 Between: Gouthamlal Kapoor and another .. Petitioners And Akarapu Narayana and others. .. Respondents C.R.P.No. 4720 of 2009 Between: Devender Kapoor and another .. Petitioners And Akarapu Narayana and others. .. Respondents COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.(SR)No. 26112 of 2009, under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, has been directed by the petitioners-tenants aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 30.12.2006, passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum- Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, R.R.District as confirmed by the judgment and decree, dated 15.07.2009, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad in R.A.No.2 of 2007, while C.R.P.(SR).No.26115 of 2009, under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, has been directed by the petitioners-tenants aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 30.12.2006, passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Tandur, R.R.District as confirmed by the judgment and decree, dated 15.07.2009, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad in R.A.No.2 of 2007. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.Laxma Reddy, learned counsel, who filed caveat for the respondents. Perused the judgments impugned herein. Both the Courts below on appreciation of the material on record, concurrently held that the information about deposit of rents was not communicated to the respondents/landlords and the petitioners/tenants have deposited the rents beyond time, and as such, held the petitioners as wilful defaulters. It is also concurrently held by the Courts below that the respondents/landlords had established that they need the suit shop for their bona fide personal requirement. Accordingly, both the Courts below ordered eviction of the petitioners/tenants. The conclusions arrived at by the Courts below being based on proper appreciation of evidence and material on record, no interference is called for by this Court with the judgments under revision. The revisions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought time to vacate the suit shop. The learned counsel for the caveator has opposed for grant of time. However, considering the fact that the premises in question is a commercial shop, to enable the petitioners to make alternative arrangements, finally four months time is granted to them to vacate the suit shop and to handover vacant possession of the same to the respondents/landlords, subject to payment of usual rents. __________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Dt.25.09.2009 VGB