THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP No.4741 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 16-09-2011 passed in RA No.338 of 2010 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 29-9-2010 passed in RC No.180 of 2009 by the Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order passed by the Courts below. 3. The petitioner herein is the respondent in RC No.180 of 2009 filed by the respondent herein who is the landlord of the premises in question. The respondent herein filed the RC against the petitioner herein on three grounds namely; willful default, created nuisance and bonafide personal requirement for establishing advocate’s office by her husband. The trial Court after recording the evidence found that the petitioner has not committed any willful default in payment of rents and any acts of waste, but held that the premises in question required for the bonafide requirement of the landlord. The said finding of the trial Court was called in question by the petitioner herein in RA No.338 of 2010 before the lower appellate Court. By the impugned order, the lower appellate Court also confirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 4. Both the Courts below on considering the oral and documentary evidence, on the grounds of bonafide requirement of the premises in question by the respondent, recorded concurrent findings. On facts nothing is pointed out to take a different view than the view taken by the Courts below. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are in fact considered by the Courts below and held against the petitioner. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court below confirming the order of the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, in view of the difficulty pleaded by the counsel in vacating the premises in question by the petitioner, six months time is granted from today to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and handover the same to the respondent-landlord, subject to payment of agreed rents and giving an undertaking in the lower appellate Court. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage itself. __________________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated: 25-11-2011 Nrg