ABBAI MALIGAI PARTNERSHIP FIRM Vs. K SANTHAKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the order made by the High Court of Madras dated 7-4-1994 in Review C. M. P. Nos. 44 and 45 of 1994 in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 4974 and 4975 of 1983.

(2.) 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 bona fide 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 bona fide dispute with regard to the title of the property which could be decided by the Civil Court. The appellate authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller on 27-8-1983. Respondents 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, confirming the view of the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the orders of the High Court dated 7-1-1987, respondents 1 and 2 filed S. L. P. (C) Nos. 4039-4040 of 1987. The appellants appeared on caveat in the Supreme Court. Both sides were represented by senior Advocates of this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the special leave petitions were dismissed on 16-9-1987. After the dismissal of the special leave petitions by this Court, the respondents filed review petitions Nos. CMP 44 and 45 of 1995 in the High Court seeking review of the order, dismissing civil revision petitions Nos. 4974 and 4975 of 1983 on 7-1-1987. It was the order dated 7-1-1987 (supra) which was the subject matter of challenge in SLP (C) Nos. 4039-4040/87. 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. The learned single Judge, by the order impugned before us not only condoned 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. Aggrieved, the appellants are before us against the order dated 7-4-1994 made in the review petitions.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.