IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5352 of 2009 Between: Smt. C. Ellamma, W/o. Govinda, D.No.36-46-87, Kancharapalem Metta, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And 1. Seerapu Dharma Raju Reddy, S/o. Late Suryanarayana Reddy, Age 46 yrs. 2. Seerapu Madhusudhana Reddy, S/o. Late Suryanarayana Reddy, Age 28 yrs. STD booth owner. 3. Seerapu Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Late Suryanarayana Reddy, Age 26 yrs. (All are residents of D.No.36-65-10, Reddy Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.) … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B. P. Raju This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.5352 of 2009 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 27.06.2008 in R.C.A.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control cases, Visakhapatnam, whereby order dated 09.11.2004 in R.C.C.No.3 of 2003 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, has been confirmed. The petitioner is the tenant of the respondents. The respondents filed R.C.C.No.3 of 2003 before the Rent Controller- cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for eviction of the petitioner on two grounds, namely; willful default and bona fide requirement. The petitioner contested the said petition. After a full dressed trial, the Rent Controller ordered for eviction of the petitioner on both the abovementioned grounds holding that the petitioner has committed willful default and that the respondents require the premises bona fide for their own occupation in order to carry on business. R.C.A.No.14 of 2004, filed by the petitioner before the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control cases, Visakhapatnam, having been dismissed, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. I have carefully gone through the findings of the Courts below and I am of the view that both the fora have given concurrent findings in respect of willful default and bona fide requirement. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings rendered by the primary and appellate Courts are not based on any evidence. Both the Courts below have discussed the evidence and rendered the findings on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error in the findings of the Courts below with reference to the evidence available on record. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pleaded that some reasonable time may be given for his client for vacating the premises. Having regard to the abovementioned request of the learned counsel and in the interests of justice, the petitioner is permitted to remain in possession of the schedule property for a period of four months, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking before the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, within a period of two weeks from today that she will vacate the premises on expiry of four months from today. If such an undertaking is not filed within the above stipulated time, the respondents shall be free to execute the decree passed in their favour. Subject to the above, the civil revision petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the revision petition, CRPMP.No.7304 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.11.2009 ES