JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.R. Choudhury for the petitioners and learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Ms. D. Das for the respondent. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners challenged order dated 29.11.2013 passed by learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. RCC(Revision) 4 of 2013. 2. The fact in short is that the respondent-landlord preferred an application before the Rent Control Court, Agartala under Sections 12(2)(b) and 12(4)(iv) of the Tripura Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 seeking eviction of the petitioners from the premises described in the schedule of the petition. It was registered as case No. RCC 7 of 2010. By judgment dated 30.06.2012 the Rent Control Court allowed the petition and directed the tenant-petitioners to vacate the possession of the rented premises within 60 days from the date of that judgment. 3. Challenging the order of the Rent Control Court, the tenant-petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 which was registered as RCC(Appeal) No. 4 of 2012 and the appeal was disposed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, i.e. the appellate authority by judgment dated 04.05.2013. Certain directions were given in the appellate order by the consent of the parties. Learned counsel of the respondent-landlord gave assurance before the Court that after the construction will be over one room will be given on rent to the tenant-petitioners for running their business which was accepted by the tenant-petitioners and the order was passed accordingly directing the tenant-petitioners to vacate the rented premises within one month from the date of judgment in the appeal. 4. Challenging the order dated 04.05.2013 passed in RCC(Appeal) No. 4 of 2012, the tenant-petitioners preferred RCC(Revision) No. 4 of 2013 in the Court of District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala and the learned District Judge by judgment/order dated 29.11.2013 disposed the revisional application directing the tenant-petitioners to vacate the rented premises within one month from the date of judgment/order so that the respondent-landlord can take up the construction work without killing further time. The revisional Court upheld the consenting order of the appellate Court that after the construction will be over one room should be provided to the tenant-petitioners. 5. The revisional Court upheld the consenting order of the appellate Court that after the construction will be over one room should be provided to the tenant-petitioners. 5. Now the tenant-petitioners again approached this Court challenging the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the revisional authority on the ground that the business of the petitioners in the rented premises is the sole source of income and that if they are evicted from the premises their only source of income will be seriously affected and so the order cannot sustain. 6. Learned counsel, Mr. Choudhury appearing for petitioners has submitted that the petitioner-tenants running their business in the rented premises which is their sole source of earning for the maintenance of their family. They could not find out any suitable accommodation in the neighborhood for running their business temporarily till the construction of the building is completed by the respondent-landlord. It is emphatically submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel that the petitioners may be allowed a small accommodation in the verandah of the building or in front of the building by the road side till the construction is over so that the petitioners can run their business. It is also submitted that there are various instances that the courts allowed at least two years time to the tenant for having an alternative arrangement. 7. Countering the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the respondent-landlord instituted the suit for eviction of the tenants on the ground of reconstruction of the building. The plan of construction was taken up in the year 2010 but for the hindrance caused by the petitioner-tenants the construction could not be taken up till today. In all the Courts, the petitioner-tenants failed but on this or that ground they are not vacating the building and as a result the respondent-landlord is not in a position to take up the construction of the building and in the meantime, costs of construction are going up. Before the appellate Court it was assured by the tenants to vacate the building at once so that the construction works could be taken up as early as possible but the petitioner-tenants approaching the Courts taking this or that ground for delaying the process only to frustrate the courts order. 8. Before the appellate Court it was assured by the tenants to vacate the building at once so that the construction works could be taken up as early as possible but the petitioner-tenants approaching the Courts taking this or that ground for delaying the process only to frustrate the courts order. 8. In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner is to show that the order passed by the Court below is out of jurisdiction or that the principle of natural justice has been violated or that the order suffers from error of law or finding is perverse. I have gone through the orders passed by the trial Court, appellate Court as well as the revisional Court. In the order passed by the appellate Court it is amply clear that the tenant-petitioners agreed to vacate the premises to facilitate construction of the building and the owner-landlord agreed to accommodate the tenant-petitioners in a room after construction. Under such circumstances, filing of the petition under Article 227 of the Construction before this Court is totally uncalled for and I find no merit at all in the petition. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. The tenant-petitioners should vacate the premises within sixty days from today.