THE HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.4134 of 2010 Oral Judgment: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the matter has come up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that though she informed the learned counsel for the Caveator twice over phone about the hearing of the case, he did not turn up. Hence, the matte was passed over. Again, when the matter was taken up at 1.00 p.m., the learned counsel for the Caveator was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf. Hence, I am now proceeding to dispose of this revision after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 33 of 2010, dated 23.7.2010. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent is the landlord. The respondent filed R.C. No.401 of 2005 before the I Additional Rent Controller under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i)(a) and 12 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act seeking eviction of the petitioner- tenant on the grounds of willful default, bona fide requirement for his personal use and occupation. By order, dated 30.09.2009, the learned Rent Controller allowed the said R.C. and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate and deliver possession of the petition schedule premises within a period of three months. Challenging the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the learned Additional Chief Judge. The learned Chief Judge, by the impugned order dated 23.7.2010, dismissed the said appeal while confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller. Hence, the present revision petition. Perused the impugned order. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Further, in FATIMA BI v. MAHABOOB SIDDIQUI[1], the Apex Court has held that when no part of evidence was misread by the lower Courts, the concurrent findings recorded by the lower Courts on appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with by the High Court in revision. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if some time is granted to the petitioner, he would vacate the premises in question. She also submitted that she would file an affidavit of the petitioner to that effect in the registry. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, time is granted to the petitioner till 31.7.2011 to vacate and deliver possession of the petition schedule premises. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. __________________ T. Meena Kumari,J Date: 21st September, 2010 pnb __________________ T. Meena Kumari,J Date: 21st September, 2010 pnb [1] 1996 AIR (SC) 2537