Judgment :- (Petition under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 to revise the order dated 18/04/2006 and made in RA no.27 of 2003 on the file of the court of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad preferred against the Order of the court of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad Dt.23-12-2002 in R.C.No.666 of 1999) Common Judgment: 1. The learned portfolio Judge of Hyderabad District ordered notice before admission on 16-6-2006 in C.R.P.No.2704/2006 and directed to list the C.R.P. along with C.M.A.No.4586/2004 and granted stay of eviction for a limited period and subsequent thereto on 30-6-2006 Sri Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the learned Counsel, entered appearance and the same had been recorded and the stay was directed to be continued and a further direction was made to list the matter after six weeks along with C.M.A.No.4586/2004. On 25-8-2006, the learned Judge made the following order: “Admit, Post for hearing at an early date along with C.M.A.No.4586/2004. Stay to continue.” Subsequent thereto on 26-10-2006 in C.M.P.No.6430/2006 it was recorded: “The petitioners are senior citizens. Post the C.R.P. for final hearing immediately after Sankranthi vacation 2007.” That is how both these matters, C.R.P. and also C.M.A. referred to supra, are coming before this Court for final hearing. 2. Facts in brief: The Revision is preferred under Section 22 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 1960, hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience, as against an order of eviction made in R.C.No.666/99 on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad as confirmed in R.A.No.27/2003 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed as against an order of remand made in A.S.No.140/2003 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Judge-Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Order XLIII Rule 1 (u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as “Code” for the purpose of convenience. The facts appear to be a bit novel. R.c.No.666/99 was filed by the respondents in the C.R.P. for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act referred to supra. It appears that the said petitioners in the R.C.No.666/99 also filed a suit O.S.No.1341/2000 on the file of VI junior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming the relief of recovery of rents. R.c.No.666/99 was filed by the respondents in the C.R.P. for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act referred to supra. It appears that the said petitioners in the R.C.No.666/99 also filed a suit O.S.No.1341/2000 on the file of VI junior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming the relief of recovery of rents. It is no doubt brought to the notice of this Court that at a particular stage when the evidence was in progress in the Rent Control Proceedings, Tr.O.P.No.2337/2001 was moved before the Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad by the Revision Petitioners in the C.r.P./respondents in the R.C. referred to supra under Section 24 of the Code with a prayer to transfer O.S.No.1341/2000 on the file of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to I Additional Rent Controller-XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and to conduct joint trial with R.C.No.666/99. It is pertinent to note that the said O.P. was resisted by the respondents in the C.R.P. since it was specified in the order that counter was filed and the application was opposed. But however, it was recorded that the suit O.S.No.1341/2000 was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and the same had already been claimed in the eviction case and in R.C.No.666/99 the respondents filed a petition for eviction on the ground of default of payment of rent and the parties are the same and the property involved is the same and hence both may be tried together. The learned Judge also recorded that an early disposal was prayed for. In such circumstances, at the instance of the Revision Petitioners in the C.R.P. the Transfer. O.P. was allowed and O.S.No.1341/2000 was withdrawn from the file of VII Junior Civil Judge and transferred to the I Additional Rent Controller-XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad with a direction to conduct joint trial with R.C.No.666/99 and dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The I Additional Rent Controller/XIII Junior Civil Judge by a common Judgment dated 23-12-2002 disposed of R.C.No.666/99 and also the suit O.S.No.1341/2000. Evidence was recorded in the Rent Control proceedings. P.W.1, Mohd. Imam and R.W.1 Srinivas were examined. Exs.P-1 to P-52 and Exs. R-1 to R-18 were marked. The Court of first instance ordered eviction in the R.C. and also decreed the suit with costs. Evidence was recorded in the Rent Control proceedings. P.W.1, Mohd. Imam and R.W.1 Srinivas were examined. Exs.P-1 to P-52 and Exs. R-1 to R-18 were marked. The Court of first instance ordered eviction in the R.C. and also decreed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, R.A.No.27/2003 was preferred to the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the Appellate Authority by order dated 18-4-2006 confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the Civil Revision Petition referred to supra was preferred under Section 22 of the Act. The unsuccessful tenants, likewise, being aggrieved of the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.1341/2000 carried the matter by way of Appeal A.S.No.140/2003 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Judge-Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the appellate Court by order dated 29-7-2004 while allowing the Appeal and setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the Court of first instance remanded the matter directing to try O.S.No.1341/2000 independently as per Law and dispose of the same. Aggrieved by the said remand order the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the said suit under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code. These are the brief facts. 3. Contention of Sri Basith Ali Yavar: Sri Basith Ali Yavar, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioners in the C.R.P. had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded by the Courts below, the learned Rent controller and also the Appellate Authority, and would maintain that the Rent Controller is a persona designate and hence even if there is an order of transfer made under Section 24 of the Code, the joint trial conducted itself is bad. The learned Counsel also would point out that it is a question concerned with the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Rent Controller trying a civil suit and inasmuch as the civil suit was tried along with the Rent Control case and Common Judgment was made, the Revision petitioners are seriously prejudiced. The learned Counsel also would point out that it is a question concerned with the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Rent Controller trying a civil suit and inasmuch as the civil suit was tried along with the Rent Control case and Common Judgment was made, the Revision petitioners are seriously prejudiced. Even otherwise, the Counsel would contend that relating to the aspect of inherent lack of jurisdiction, neither estoppel nor res judicata would operate and hence inasmuch as the Common Judgment itself being vitiated, an order of remand was correctly made and in the light of the order of remand made in A.S.No. 140/2003, the order made even in R.C.No.666/99 and R.A.No.27/2003 referred to above, being invalid or nonest in the eye of Law, this matter also to be remanded with a direction to the learned Rent Controller to independently deal with R.C.No.666/99 totally unconcerned with the suit referred to supra. Incidentally, the learned Counsel also pointed out to certain other factual aspects. The Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Isabella Johnson (Smt.) Vs. M.A. Susai (Dead) by L.Rs. (1991 (1) APLJ (SC) 45) 4. Contentions of Sri Ravi Shanker: Sri Ravi Shanker, the learned Counsel representing the respondents in this C.M.A., who are also the Revision Petitioners in the C.r.P. referred to supra, made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would contend that merely because an order was made under Section 24 of the Code, the Rent Controller is not empowered to deal with the original suit. The Counsel also pointed out that the order made under Section 24 of the Code itself is bad since Section 24 of the Code cannot be invoked for the purpose of ordering joint trial of an original suit along with a Rent Control proceedings. When that being so, the Counsel would maintain that the order of remand is well justified and both the matters are to be independently tried. The Counsel also pointed out that the way in which the Common Judgment was delivered by the Court of first instance, the learned Rent Controller, would definitely go to show that serious prejudice is caused to these parties/tenants. 5. Contentions of Sri Chandra Shekar Reddy: Sri Chandra Shekar Reddy the learned Counsel representing the respondents in the C.R.P. who are the appellants in the C.M.A., made the following submissions. 5. Contentions of Sri Chandra Shekar Reddy: Sri Chandra Shekar Reddy the learned Counsel representing the respondents in the C.R.P. who are the appellants in the C.M.A., made the following submissions. This is a typical case, the learned Counsel would contend, where the tenants are trying to prolong the litigation on some ground or the other. The Counsel also would contend that here is a case where evidence was recorded by the learned Rent Controller who is also the Junior Civil Judge, competent to try the suit. The learned Counsel also would point out that though the proceedings had been instituted on the Rent Control side for eviction, incidentally, the civil suit also was filed for recovery of arrears of rent, which is having close nexus to the questions involved in the Rent Control proceedings. The learned Counsel also would point out that these parties were never interested in having a joint trial at all. In fact, when evidence was in progress, with a view to prolong the proceedings, the tenants had thought of filing to Transfer O.P. and the same was resisted. Despite the same, the learned Judge made such an order and in pursuance thereof, both were tried by the learned Rent Controller who is also the Junior Civil Judge. The learned Counsel further maintained that even if the contentions of the other side to be taken, at the best, this can be said to be an irregularity, but not an illegality touching the jurisdiction since the learned junior Civil Judge who is also a persona designate acting as the Rent Controller is competent to try even the original suit. The learned Counsel also would further contend that at any rate, since the evidence was recorded in the Rent Control proceedings, when concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, the tenants cannot be permitted to urge that it is a fit matter for remand and as far as the Rent Control proceedings are concerned, absolutely there is no illegality or at least irregularity and hence as far as the order of eviction is concerned, the same to be confirmed. Incidentally, the Counsel would point out that the order of remand also cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Incidentally, the Counsel would point out that the order of remand also cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Heard the Counsel on record and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the Court of first instance/the learned Rent Controller/Junior Civil Judge concerned in R.C.No.666/99 as confirmed in R.A.No.27/2003 and also the findings recorded in O.S.No.1341/2000 by virtue of the Common Judgment which had been reversed and an order of remand was made in A.S.No.140/2003 as referred to above. 7. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court referred (1) supra wherein it was held that the view that the principle of res judicata is applicable to an erroneous decision on jurisdiction cannot be regarded as good law and a Court which has no jurisdiction in law cannot be conferred with the jurisdiction by applying the principle of res judicata and it is well settled that there can be no estoppel on a pure question of law and in this case the question of jurisdiction is a pure question of law. There cannot be any doubt relating to the said proposition of law specified supra. 8. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as “petitioners” and “respondents” as arrayed in the R.C. who are incidentally the plaintiffs and defendants in the original suit referred to supra. 9. The petitioners filed the R.C.No.666/99 for eviction and as plaintiffs they also filed the suit O.S.No.1341/2000 for recovery of arrears of rent. It is needless to say that the Rent Control proceedings to be tried by a learned Rent Controller and an Original Suit to be tried by a Civil Court. It is also true that an application for transfer of a Rent Control proceeding would be governed by the specified Rules and a transfer relating to the civil proceedings would be governed by Section 24 of the Code. The petitioners averred in the Rent Control case as hereunder: The 1st petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No.1-4-443/A, Kavadiguda Road, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The respondent is the tenant in the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- exclusive of water and electricity consumption charges, who had died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 6. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The respondent is the tenant in the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- exclusive of water and electricity consumption charges, who had died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 2 to 6. The tenancy is oral and month to month according to English calendar. The rent receipts had been acknowledged by the Agent or Rent Collector of the petitioner under the printed receipts after obtaining the signatures of the respondent or his agent on the counter-foils. It was stated by the 1st petitioner that the rent receipts were issued in the name of the 1st petitioner as owner and on few occasions the rent receipts were issued in the name of the 2nd petitioner by mistake by the Agent or the Rent Collector as both the petitioners were residing abroad during that time. It was further stated that the respondent is a chronic and willful defaulter in payment of monthly rents and failed to pay the rents from 1-2-1995 and in spite of several demands made by the petitioner, the respondent failed to pay the same. It was respondent averred that in practice the rents were collected by Mr. Syed Azeemuddin, representative of the petitioner and the receipts were signed and issued by the local representatives of the petitioners as the petitioners were residing abroad. The respondent failed to pay the rents from 1-2-1995 upto 30-11-1999, i.e., for a period of 58 months amounting to Rs. 46,400/- at the rate of Rs.2400/- under the rent receipt 185 dated 13-11-1995 towards the arrears of rent for the period from November 1994 to January 1995. It was further stated that the premises was let out for residential purpose and the respondent converted the same for commercial purpose i.e., fire-wood stall without the consent of the petitioners and in spite of repeated protests the respondent failed to stop the said business. As such the respondent violated the terms and conditions of the tenancy by changing the premises from residential to commercial. The respondent also secured another premises No.1-4-460/1, Kavadiguda Road, Hyderabad for his residence and therefore the respondent is liable for eviction. It was further stated that the petitioner premises was construed more than 50 years back and is in a dilapidated condition. The respondent also secured another premises No.1-4-460/1, Kavadiguda Road, Hyderabad for his residence and therefore the respondent is liable for eviction. It was further stated that the petitioner premises was construed more than 50 years back and is in a dilapidated condition. The premises adjacent to the petition premises fell down and the petition premises is also likely to fall down. Therefore the petitioner intend to demolish the entire structure and construct a new building for the personal occupation of the petitioners residence as the petitioners have no other house of their own and hence the petitioners sought for the eviction of the respondent. 10. The 3rd respondent in the R.C. filed counter affidavit, which was adopted by respondents 2 and 4 to 6, with the following averments: It was stated that the 2nd petitioner filed R.C.No.145/98 against the 1st respondent on the ground of willful default in payment of rents and change of use of the premises and also filed I.A.No. 450/99 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner had withdrawn the said application and the present petition was filed on the same lines. Therefore the doctrine of res judicata applies to the present petition. It was further stated that at the first instance the 1st respondent/deceased obtained the petition premises on rent exclusive of electricity and water charges from Smt. Zohara Siddiqui about 35 years back for both purposes i.e., residential as well as for business and the tenancy was oral. There was no stipulated date for payment of rents and the rents were collected at the convenience. It was further stated that in 1979, the 1st petitioner purchased the petition premises from Smt. Zohra Siddiqui and the Rent collector used to obtain signatures of the 1st respondent on the counterfoils. It was further stated that the monthly rents were regularly paid to the landlord. The petitioner was in the habit of collecting rents at irregular intervals. It was denied that at any time the petitioners or their representatives or their agents had ever demanded for payment of arrears of rent much less the rents for the period from 1-2-1995 to 30-11-1999 amounting to Rs.46,400/-. The 1st respondent was regular in payment of rents and therefore there was no willful default committed by the respondent. The 1st respondent obtained the premises from the previous landlord for both the purposes. The 1st respondent was regular in payment of rents and therefore there was no willful default committed by the respondent. The 1st respondent obtained the premises from the previous landlord for both the purposes. It was denied that the respondent secured any alternative accommodation in H.No.1-4-460/1, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad. It was stated that the petitioners were having many immovable properties in their names in the twin cities. It was denied for want of knowledge that the petition premises was constructed 50 years back and further it was stated that the petition premises is in good condition and is not in the dilapidated condition. It was denied that the petitioners require the petition premises bonafide. It was further stated that if he is evicted, the respondent would suffer more hardship than the petitioners and therefore sought dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs of Rs.5000/-. 11. Before the Rent Controller the following Points for consideration were framed: 1. Whether the respondent committed willful default? 2. Whether the respondent converted the use of the premises to other purpose from the purpose originally obtained without permission of the petitioners? 3. Whether the respondent secured alternative accommodation? 4. Whether the petition premises is in dilapidated condition and needs reconstruction? 5. Whether the petitioner has bona fide requirement for self-occupation of the premises? 6. To what relief? 12. With almost same averments between the same parties, the suit O.S.No.1341/2000 for recovery of arrears of rent for the period 1998 to 29-2-2000 for an amount of Rs.28,800/- was instituted and the respondents in the R.C. as defendants in the said suit denied the liability and on the strength of the pleadings, the following Issues were settled: 1. Whether the defendant has paid entire arrears and that there are no dues? 2. To what relief? By virtue of the order made in O.P.No.2337/2001, dated 29-1-2002, the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 and also Exs.P-1 to P-52 and Exs.R-1 to R-18 had been appreciated in detail by the learned I Additional Rent Controller-cum-XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and ultimately eviction was ordered granting two months’ time to vacate the premises and also decree as prayed for had been granted in the suit. The order made in the R.C. was carried by way of Appeal R.A.No.27/2003 to the Appellate Authority/Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the Appellate Authority at para -20 framed the following Points for consideration: 1. Whether the tenant committed default in payment of rent from February 1995 till end of November 1999 at the rate of Rs.800/- per month amounting to Rs.46,400/- if so does it amount to willful default? 2. Whether the original tenant changed use of nature of the premises from residential to non-residential? 3. Whether the original tenant secured alternative accommodation in premises No.1-4-460/1, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad for his residence if so, does it amount to alternative accommodation? 4. Whether the requirement pleaded by the landlords is bona fide and genuine if so, the tenants are liable to be evicted from the schedule premises on any of the grounds? The Appellate Authority discussed the oral and documentary evidence available on record at length commencing from paras 21 to 33 and ultimately dismissed the Appeal confirming the order of eviction. As against the same, the C.R.P. had been preferred. 13. The principal ground on which the relief of eviction had been prayed for by the petitioners is that the respondents/tenants had committed willful default in payment of rent from 1-2-1995 to 30-11-1999 amounting to Rs.46,400/- at the rate of Rs.800/- per month and the said default is willful default. The respondents denied the same on the ground that the original tenant paid the rent for the said period and on yet another ground that there is a practice of payment of rent once in two or six months or a year and therefore there is no default, much less, willful default in payment of rent. P.W.1, the 1st petitioner, deposed in detail relating to the collection of rent and the agent collecting the rent and issuing the printed receipts and the said practice was well established by producing Exs.P-47 to P-51. The evidence of P.W.1 had been death with in detail and Exs.P-1 to P-5, the counterfoils, Ex.P-6 carbon copy of the receipt dated 11-12-2002, Exs.P-7 and P-8 photos with negatives, Exs. P-42 to P-46 certified copies of the different proceedings also had been relied upon. The evidence of R.W.1 was taken into consideration and Exs.R-1 to R-18 also had been considered. P-42 to P-46 certified copies of the different proceedings also had been relied upon. The evidence of R.W.1 was taken into consideration and Exs.R-1 to R-18 also had been considered. It also appears that the Appeal was reopened for further hearing for the purpose of comparing the admitted signatures exercising posers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act with the disputed signatures. The Appellate Authority recorded certain findings in relation to Ex.R-9 and also in relation to Ex.R-43. Specific finding had been recorded that the respondents are principally basing on Ex.R-9 to prove the payment of rent for the default period, but in the light of the positive findings recorded concurrently by both the Courts in relation to Ex.R-9, disbelieving the same and excluding the very consideration, the other findings recorded that there is no acceptable evidence in relation to the explanation, being predominantly a question of fact, the same need not be disturbed in a C.R.P. under Section 22 of the Act. 14. This Court had given anxious consideration to the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 as well apart from the findings, which had been recorded by both the Courts below. On appreciation of the documents Exs.P-1 to R-52 and Exs.R-1 to R-18 and the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority if scrutinized carefully, this Court is satisfied that there is no illegality or legal infirmity whatsoever in the said findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority and hence the contentions advanced by the Counsel representing the Revision petitioners cannot be accepted, especially in the light of the fact that the evidence was recorded by the learned Rent Controller in the Rent Control proceeding and the said order was carried by way of Appeal to the Appellate Authority as contemplated by Law and the mere fact that the civil suit also had been tried by the learned Rent Controller by virtue of the order made in the Transfer O.P. would not vitiate the proceedings and hence the C.R.P. being devoid of merit, the same shall stand dismissed. 15. 15. The matter does not stop there since by virtue of the Common Judgment, the civil suit also had been decided and an order of remand was made in A.S.No.140/2003 referred to supra and aggrieved by the same C.M.A.No.4586/2004 was filed by the unsuccessful petitioners/plaintiffs in the said suit specified above. It is true that pursuant to the order made in the Transfer O.P., the learned I Additional Rent Controller/XIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, on the self-same evidence, the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-52 and Exs.R-1 to R-18, answered Issues 1 and 2 at paras 27, 28 and 29 and ultimately decreed the suit with costs against the defendants for an amount of Rs.28,800/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of Judgment and Decree with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. This joint trial of the suit by the Rent Controller was found fault by the appellate Court in a.S.No.140/2003 and the appellate Court ultimately made the order of remand directing to try O.S.No.1341/2000 independently as per law and dispose of the same. The reasons recorded by the appellate Court, the learned XIII Additional Chief Judge-Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in nut-shell are as hereunder: R.C.No.666/99 is governed by the Act which is a State Act and the suit instituted by the plaintiffs O.S.No.1341/2000 is governed by the Code, which is a Central Act and in view of the same the clubbing of the suit with R.C.No.666/99 is impermissible and recording of common evidence and pronouncement of common judgment after common trial also cannot be sustained. 16. An act of a Court normally should not result in inconvenience to the parties or put the parties into trouble. It is true that when there is conflict between the Law and equity, Law may have to prevail. It is pertinent to note that always a distinction to be drawn between and irregularity and illegality. Here is a typical case where the parties who invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judge by moving a Transfer O.P. and got an order of transfer, now are contending otherwise on the ground that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try the original suit. Here is a typical case where the parties who invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judge by moving a Transfer O.P. and got an order of transfer, now are contending otherwise on the ground that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try the original suit. It is pertinent to note that the original suit also is concerned with recovery of arrears of rent which is incidentally the subject matter of the ground of willful default in the Rent Control proceedings. There is no doubt no controversy that Section 24 of the Code deals with Transfer of suits in civil proceedings and for transfer of rent Control proceedings the Rules under the Act specify the procedure specifying the authority as well before whom such transfers are to be moved. Here is a case where the learned rent Controller, may be a persona designate under the Act was dealing with the Rent Control matter who is also the learned Junior Civil Judge who is otherwise competent to decide a civil suit as well. It is not as though the Rent Control proceeding was decided by an ordinary Civil Court which is not conferred with the powers of being a persona designate under the Act. The position appears to be converse in the matter. The Rent Controller who is also the Junior Civil Judge and who is competent to try both Rent Control proceedings and also the original suit, had tried, and may be, the joint trial at the best may be an irregularity. But, this was done in pursuance of an order which the petitioners/tenants themselves had invited by invoking the jurisdiction of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad by moving the Transfer O.P. in such a case, such parties, the petitioners/tenants, cannot be permitted to contend otherwise and hence this Court is not inclined to agree with the findings which had been recorded by the appellate Court while making the order of remand. It is true that this Court dealing with a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, at the best can set aside the order of remand and again remit the matter back to the appellate Court to decide the matter in accordance with Law. 17. In the light of the findings recorded above, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed, with costs. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed, with costs. 17. In the light of the findings recorded above, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed, with costs. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby allowed, with costs. It is needless to say that the matter is remanded to the appellate Court to decide the Appeal in accordance with Law on the strength of the evidence, which had been already recorded by the Court of first instance within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 18. Though this Court is satisfied that there are no bona fides at all on the part of the so-called tenants who are fighting the litigation on frivolous grounds, in the light of the facts and circumstances which had been brought to the notice of this Court, three months’ time is hereby granted for vacating the premises on the condition of these parties filing an undertaking before this Court to vacate the premises without praying for any further extension whatsoever within a period of two weeks from today. It is needless to say that for this period rents to be regularly paid.