1. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 04.02.2016 passed by the learned DRAT, dismissing an appeal filed by them against the orders dated 13.11.2015 and 13.01.2016 passed by the learned DRT.

2. On 13.11.2015, the Securitisation Application filed by the petitioners was disposed of by the DRT in view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioners to the effect that his clients were ready to vacate the subject premises along with roof rights within 30 days, they were granted a period of 30 days to vacate the subject premises and hand over possession thereof to the respondent No.1/Bank. Two days short of the expiry of 30 days granted to the petitioners, they moved an application before the learned DRT for seeking recall of the order dated 13.11.2015 stating inter alia that they were never apprised by their counsel of the order dated 13.11.2015 and nor was the said counsel given any instructions for vacating the subject premises within 30 days. Vide order dated 17.12.2015, the said review application was dismissed by the DRT-III, Delhi.

3. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioners had filed an appeal before the learned DRAT, registered as Appeal No.401/2015. Vide order dated 29.12.2015, the learned DRAT dismissed the said appeal in limine with the following observations:-

“Submission by the counsel for the appellants is that the counsel appearing to represent the appellants had made this statement without proper instructions and had even made a statement in respect of the property which was not owned by the appellants. As per the counsel, the roof rights of the second floor of the property in question are owned by Mr. Yogender Sharma, who had separately filed another S.A. before the Tribunal below. The counsel would refer to the order dated December 17, 2015 whereby the Tribunal below has granted protection to the said applicant Mr. Yogender Sharma so far as the statement for vacating roof rights of the second floor was concerned as this part of the property was not owned by the appellant. The counsel says that injustice would result if the present order is allowed to stand. The counsel has made an attempt to show me certain documents to indicate the title of the property in question. In my view, the application filed for seeking review of the order was not maintainable on the grounds pleaded. If the counsel has made any statement without proper instructions conveyed to him, the proper course for the appellants was to move an application to withdraw the statement made by the counsel and then seek adjudication on merits. The review has rightly been declined by the Tribunal below as there is no ground to seek review of the order once the counsel for the appellant had made the statement for vacating the property. The plea that statement related to that part of the property which was not owned by the appellant can be a cause of grievance by the owner of that part who had already obtained relief. If indeed, the counsel for the appellant had made this statement for vacating the property, then no case of review is made out. It is for the appellants to adopt appropriate course to approach the Tribunal for withdrawing the statement or any other mode in case the statement was made without instructions from the appellants. No case for interference in the order under appeal is made out. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.”

4. Faced with the above order, the petitioners again approached the DRT and filed an application praying inter alia that the earlier order dated 13.11.2015 be recalled. The said application was however dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 13.01.2016. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.1.2016, the petitioners again approached the DRAT by filing another appeal, registered as Appeal No.82/2016, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 04.02.2016, with an observation that the petitioners could not be believed simply on their statement to the effect that their counsel