HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5122 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 29.09.2011 passed in R.A.No.80 of 2006 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 22.07.2005 passed in R.C.No.116 of 1998 by the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order passed by both the Courts below. 3. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner in R.C.No.116 of 1998 filed seeking eviction of the respondents therein from the petition schedule premises on the ground of willful default, subletting, committing acts of waste and also on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. The 1st respondent herein stated to be the owner and landlord of the premises in question situated at Nampally, Hyderabad, which was obtained on lease by the 2nd respondent herein from the mother of the landlord. It is stated that the 2nd respondent herein committed willful default in payment of rents and he has also committed acts of waste. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent has sub-let the premises in question to the revision petitioner herein. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on all counts held that the revision petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent are liable to be evicted from the petition schedule premises and accordingly allowed the RC. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed which also ended in dismissal confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Both the Courts below considering the evidence adduced have currently held that there was default in payment of rent, that 2nd respondent has sublet the premises to the revision petitioner herein and the premises is also bonafidely required by the landlord/1st respondent herein. This finding being a finding of facts arrived by the Courts below, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court and the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 4. However, in view of the difficulty pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner in vacating the premises by the petitioner, three months time from today is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and hand over vacant premises of the same to the landlord subject to giving an undertaking to that effect. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Dated: 03.12.2011 Nrg