ORDER:

This revisi, ,n petition has been filed against the order dated

09.06.2010 pass, d in R.A. No.124 of 2OO9 by rhe Iearned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

The petitiot er and the respondent herein are the tenant and the landlord, respecti,ely.

The Court below vide impugned order dated 09.06.2010 confirmed the or lers of the learned ill Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad passe,I in I.A. No.217 of 2OO9 in RC. No.27a of 2009 on I

30.10.2009, whe ein ' directed the tenant to vacate the petition 1 I )

schedule propert) within a period of two months from the date of the order and put the landlord in vacant possession.

Today, whe n the matter has been taken up for hearing, the learned couns:l for the petitioner/ tenant, fairly conceded that the petitioner is inten ling to vacate the petition schedule properq/ within two months.

On the oth:r hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, landlord, submitt:d that there is concurrent finding by l:oth the Courts below an( there is a direction to the petitioner/ tenant to vacate the petitio, schedule premises. He opposed for granting the time to vacate th: premises, as sought for by the counsel for the petitioner, bu