Judgment : 1. At the request of both the Counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The respondents petition under Section 27(m)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 seeking eviction of the petitioner was allowed by the Court below granting a period of three months to vacate. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/tenant has filed this petition. 3. Sri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the court below committed an error in passing the impugned order. He contends that no grounds have been made out by the respondent under Section 27 (m)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act to sustain the impugned order. He further contends that the contentions urged by him have not been properly considered. Hence, interference is called for. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent defends the impugned order and submits that no interference is called for. He contends that the Court below on considering the contentions and the evidence on record, has passed the impugned order. 5. I have heard both the Counsel, Both the Counsel on completion of the arguments submit that if appropriate time is granted, they are willing to settle the matter. Accordingly, both the Counsel submit that a sum of Rs.35,000/- being paid by the petitioner to the respondent, they would not press the petition. The terms having been accepted, the petitioner has tendered a cheque for a sum of Rs.35,000/-towards the forthcoming rents due to the Counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. Accordingly the time to vacate the premise is extended till the end of November 2010. The petitioner shall file an undertaking to voluntarily handover the premises by the end of November. The revision petition stands disposed of on the above terms.