(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) THE respondent had filed in 1989 an eviction petition inter alia on the ground that the property had to be reconstructed. It was also alleged that the tenant had made certain alterations.

(3) THE trial court dismissed the said petition and the respondent filed a revision before the High Court. On 14-7-1998, a Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of the trial court and ordered eviction of the appellant herein under Section 21 (1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. It appears that an application for review was filed in which it was stated that counsel for the appellant herein was not present at the time when the High Court allowed the revision petition and the order under review which had stated that the counsel for the parties had been heard was erroneous. The High Court dismissed the application for review in limine. Hence these appeals by special leave.

(4) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(5) IT appears to us that the averment made in the review application that no one was present on behalf of the appellant at the time when the revision was taken up for hearing, was not without a