(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) HEARD elaborately learned counsel on both the sides.

(3) THE respondent filed an application under Section 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the appellants on the ground of bona fide use and occupation of the suit house. The learned Small Causes Judge, after hearing the case, allowed the eviction petition. Against that order of eviction, only revision under Section 50 is provided in the Act. Accordingly, the appellants preferred a revision petition to the Karnataka High Court. Pending revision, the appellants preferred several separate applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, seeking permission to produce additional evidence and to bring to the notice of the High Court certain vital subsequent events. Unfortunately, the High Court while dismissing the revision, has dismissed the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, by stating that no prima facie material has been filed to appreciate the applications without discussing the materials placed before it. On a perusal of the materials placed before the High Court, we are of the view that the High Court should have allowed the petitions to produce additional evi