The appellate authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller on 27.8.1983, Respon dent 1 and 2 thereupon preferred revision petitions in the High Court and by its order dated 7.1.1987, the High Court rejected both the revision petitions, companyfirming the view of the appellate authority.
1 SCR 535 The following Order of the Court was delivered These appeals are directed against the order made by High Court of Madras dated 7,4.1994 in Review C.M.P. Nos.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Aggrieved by the orders of the High Court dated 7.1.1987, respondents 1 and 2 filed L.P. C Nos.
It was the order dated 7.1.1987 supra which was the subject matter of challenge in SLP C Nos.
4974 and 4975 of 1983 on 7.1.1987.
There was also a delay of 221 days in filing the review petitions in the High Court after the dismissal of the special leave petitions.
Aggrieved, the appellants are before us against the order dated 7.4.1994 made in the review petitions.
4974 and 4975 of 1983, The Rent Controller ordered eviction of the appellants in an eviction petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement of the premises by respondents 1 and 2 for their own business On appeal filed by the appellant tenants, it was found that there was a bonafide dispute with regard to the title of the property which companyld be decided by the Civil Court.
4039 4040 of 1987.
CMP 44 and 45 of 1994 in the High Court seeking review of the order, dismissing civil revision petitions No.
4039 4040/87.
After hearing learned companynsel for the parties, the special leave petitions were dismissed on 16.9.1987, After the dismissal of the special leave petitions by this companyrt, the respondents filed review petitions No.
The learned Single Judge, by the order impugned before us, number only companydoned the delay of 221 days but also reviewed the earlier orders made on 7.1.1987, reversed the orders made in civil revision petitions and allowed civil revision petitions and ordered eviction of the tenant appellants.
Both sides were represented by senior Advocates of this companyrt.
1998 Supp.
The appellants appeared on caveat in the Supreme Court.
44 and 45 of 1994 in Civil Revision Petition Nos.
