THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NOS.2294 OF 2377 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER Heard both the counsel. 2. As the subject matter in both the petitions is connected and the parties are one and the same, both the revisions are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioner in both the revisions is the tenant and the respondent no.1 is the landlady and respondent no.2 is her husband. They filed R.C.C.No.20/2007 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, seeing eviction of the tenant on the grounds of bona fide requirement for personal use, change of nature of business for which the premises was leased out and for willful default in payment of rent. While allowing the petition, the trial court held that there is no change of use of premises by the tenant and that the landlady failed to prove the bona fide requirement. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court in allowing the petition, the tenant filed appeal in R.C.A.No.8/2010 and similarly aggrieved by the findings of the trial court in holding that there is no bona fide requirement and that there is change in nature of use of property, the landlady and her husband filed appeal in R.C.A.No.10/2010. The lower appellate court ie.., the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, reversed the findings of the trial court with regard to bona requirement and change of nature of use of schedule property and accordingly, dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and allowed the appeal filed by the land owners. 4. From the material on record, the courts below concurrently found that the tenant committed willful default in payment of rent. Though the trial court found that the landlady failed to prove bona fide requirement and that there is change in nature of use of property, the trial court re-appreciating the entire evidence and relying on the judgment of this court with regard to bona fide requirement, held that the landlady requires the premises for bona fide requirement and further as there is no evidence to show that though the tenant has taken consent to run milk business and vegetable business, apart from STD both, for which he has taken the premises, the lower appellate court found that there is change in nature of use of the premises. Accordingly, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and allowed the appeal by the landlady. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court and the revision is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner – tenant submitted that the children of the tenant are studying and they require some time for vacating the premises in question. To this request, the learned counsel for the respondent – landlady submitted that this court may grant some reasonable time. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petitions are dismissed. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the petitioner - tenant is granted time till 31.12.2011 for vacating and handing over of the vacant possession of the suit schedule property, subject to payment of arrears and rent and furnishing usual undertaking by way of affidavit before the trial court undertaking to vacate the premises by 31.12.2011 and payment of rent and arrears of rent. The undertaking shall be furnished within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case of default, the time granted by this court, stands ceased and the respondent - landlady is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for execution of the impugned order. 8. No order as to costs. AVS ---------------------------- 29—06—2011