IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :3941 OF 2010 DATED:17.9.2010 Between: Ramesh Watch Company .....PETITIONER AND K.Sridhar Rao .....RESPONDENT This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :3941 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7.7.2010 in R.A.No:161 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2006 in R.C.No:140 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad. The respondent herein is the landlord and the revision petitioner is the tenant. The landlord has filed R.C.140 of 2004 against the tenant under section 10 (3) (iii) seeking for eviction from the petition schedule premises. The learned Rent Controller having observed that all the legal heirs of one K.Ramarao have no objection for the rent to be paid to the respondent herein due to their arrangement and so far, there is also no objection from any quarter of L.Rs of late Ramarao and as such, it can be said that the respondent is the authorized person on their behalf to receive rents and the respondent is entitled for the affairs of the petition schedule premises and that the tenant had also not denied the requirement of the premises by the landlord and thereby, the respondent is entitled for possession of the petition schedule premises on the ground that he requires for self-occupation, allowed the RC. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant carried the matter in appeal, wherein the order of the Rent Controller was confirmed. Hence, the tenant filed the present revision. When this matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant filed an affidavit under which the petitioner- tenant while giving an undertaking to vacate the schedule premises seeks time. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the proceedings and in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts, I feel that the judgment impugned does not warrant any interference by this Court. But however, in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner-tenant, one year and six months time is granted to it to vacate the schedule premises. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari Date:17.9.2010 Nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :3941 of 2010 17th SEPTEMBER, 2010