M NARAYANAN Vs. S P NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSPITE of the direction given by this Court the name of the learned counsel for the respondent has wrongly been printed in the cause list as Mr. Padmeswaran instead of Mrs. Padmeswari and also the other counsel for the respondent as Mr. V. K. Kannusamy instead of V. K. Kumarasamy.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. This Revision has been preferred against the order of eviction in RCA. No. 221 of 2001 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which is a concurrent finding. A. C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN, J. There is no material placed before this Court to show that the Courts below are perverse in arriving at a finding and that they failed to consider the material placed before them while passing a concurrent order of eviction. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent once again represented that the respondent, who is a senior citizen, is willing to give six months time for the revision petitioner to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition scheduled property.

(3.) UNDER such circumstances, the Revision is dismissed confirming the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA. No. 221 of 2001 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. Time of vacating the premises is six months from today. Affidavit of undertaking to be filed within a week. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.