THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2151 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a tenant in respect of non-residential premises, owned by the respondent. The tenancy commenced in the year 1983. The respondent filed R.C.C.No.4 of 2008 before the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he committed default in payment of rent. It was alleged that the rent at the relevant point of time was Rs.3,200/- and the petitioner did not pay it for several months. The petitioner filed a counter-affidavit. He did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant. However, he disputed the quantum of rent and pleaded that there are no arrears payable by him. Through his order, dated 25.07.2009, the Rent Controller allowed the R.C.C. and directed eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2010 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was dismissed on 30.04.2010. Hence, this revision under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, who filed caveat. The only ground on which the respondents sought eviction of the petitioner is the default in payment of rent. However, the Rent Controller framed several issues touching on other ancillary issues also. The respondent deposed as P.W.1 and on his behalf, Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. The petitioner deposed as R.W.1 and he filed Exs.R1 to R4. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court recorded a specific finding to the effect that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent. It needs to be observed that the contention of the petitioner that the rent is only Rs.1600/- per month, was accepted and the default emerged even at that rate. The lower appellate Court has considered the matter in detail and affirmed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is running automobile business in the premises and he needs reasonable time to secure alternative premises. He prays for time for eviction from the premises. The request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. This Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be granted reasonable time. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed by granting time to the petitioner to vacate the premises till 31.12.2010, subject to the condition that he shall deposit arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today and continue to deposit the monthly rent on or before 10th of every month. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.06.2010. kdl