THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4551 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 22.08.2009 in I.A.No.703 of 2008 in O.S.No.2216 of 2007 on the file of the VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner herein who is the plaintiff, filed the suit being O.S.No.2216 of 2007 before the court below, for eviction of the respondent herein who is the defendant, from the suit schedule property. During pendency of the said suit, the petitioner filed the present I.A.703 of 2008, alleging that the respondent has taken a plea in the written statement that he has vacated the suit schedule property on 11.12.2007, but that is not so, and contended that the suit schedule property is still under the lock and key of the respondent and that the respondent is neither paying the rents for the illegal use and occupation nor handing over the possession of the premises, and, therefore, he sought a direction to the respondent to handover the physical possession of the suit schedule property under the supervision of an Advocate Commissioner. The respondent resisted the I.A. by way of filing a detailed counter affidavit denying the allegations of the petitioner in the petitioner and, particularly, stating that he vacated the suit schedule property and delivered possession of the same on 11.12.2007 itself, after giving notice to the petitioner on 12.09.2007, and he is not holding any keys as alleged by the petitioner. The trial Court considering the rival contentions, and upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, by the impugned order dated 22.08.2009 dismissed the petition holding that there is no satisfactory grounds established by the petitioner to consider his application. Questioning the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on 12.09.2007, a notice was issued to the petitioner, intimating about the termination of lease agreement and to take possession of the suit schedule property and return security deposit in favour of the respondent. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not at all served with the notice dated 12.09.2007 alleged to have been issued by the respondent, and till date, the suit schedule property is under the lock and key of the respondent. Since the stand taken by the respondent in the written statement that he has vacated the premises and handed over the vacant possession thereof, is disputed by the petitioner, this Court directed the respondent to produce the legal notice dated 12.09.2007, alleged to have been issued by the respondent informing the petitioner that he has vacated the premises. As directed, the respondent produced photocopy of the legal notice, said to have been issued by him to the petitioner. However, the legal notice does not contain endorsement of the petitioner, evidencing acknowledgement of the same. In the absence of any evidence placed by the respondent to show that the notice was served on the petitioner, it cannot be conclusively said that the respondent had handed over the possession of the suit schedule property to the petitioner. Hence, the dispute as to whether the property has been handed over to the petitioner or not may be decided in the main suit. Hence, at this stage, it is not appropriate for this Court to give a direction to the respondent to handover the physical possession of the suit schedule property under the supervision of an Advocate Commissioner. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 22.01.2010 Note: Issue CC today B/o v v