( 1 ) THIS is the revision application under sec. 29 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act by the owners of business premises at Rajkot who have thrown all moral and ethical standards to wind for the purpose of their selfish ends and had it not been for jurisdictional difficulty raised by them I would have happily rejected their revision application.

( 2 ) A few facts requires to be stated. These applicants-landlords had filed in the competent rent court of Rajkot a Regular Civil Suit No. 298 against the deceased tenant Bhaichand Virchandbhai whose three sons opponents Nos. 1 2 and 3 are his heirs and legal representatives. The said suit filed by the applicants-landlords in the court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Rajkot was for possession of the tended property godown 22x 8. 2 on the ground that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by them for carrying out the repairs which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. The suit was filed on 31 March 1971 On 27th April 1971 the parties entered into compromise which is Ex. 39. Ex. 38 on the record of the present proceedings is the plaint in that suit. As per the compromise Ex. 39 the landlords agreed that the deceased Bhaichand Virchandbhai was continued to be a tenant of the premises; that he continued to be in possession of the premises; that the landlords were permitted entry on the rented property for the purpose of effecting demolition and reconstruction of the premises to be completed by them within the six months i. e. by 31st October 1971 that if the landlords failed to reconstruct the property within that stipulated time the tenant-Bhaichand Virchand was at liberty to get the work completed at the cost of the landlords and that the rent for the premises was to be paid by the tenant at the rate of Rs. 50/per month on and from 1971 The learned Judge before whom the compromise Ex. 39 was presented passed the following order:-"plaintiffs defendant and advocate of plaintiffs are present. They admitted the contents of compromise. Decree to be drawn in terms of compromise". The formal decree as per Ex. 40 came to be also drawn by the learned Judge. Thereafter the landlords demolished the property and started reconstruction. Then on 1-12-1971 the deceased tenant Bhaichand Virchand sent a telegraphic notice to the landlords in the following terms:-"remove your materials from my clients rented godown situated near Alfred High School within 24 hours otherwise my client lodging criminal complaints against you and you liable for all consequences". The landlords gave reply Ex. 42 on 14-12-71. The landlords informed the tenant that the work of renovation was going on and the landlords were keen to finish the constructional work as early as possible and that there was no case for any threat of prosecution. The building then came to be fully constructed but the landlords were in no mood to allow the tenant entry on the premises. So deceased Bhaichand Virchandbhai the tenant filed an application before the court which came to be registered as Misc. Application No. 252/72. The application purported to be one under sec. 16 (3) of the Bombay Rent Act and the prayer was that the landlords be directed to hand over the possession to the tenant pursuant to the decree passed in the above mentioned suit No. 298/71. The landlords could successfully thwart the tenants attempts to have the expeditious justice and the applicant-tenant Bhaichand Virchand died in the year 1975 and his heirs the present opponent Nos. 1 2 and 3 prosecuted the said application. In the year 1973 the landlords whose malignant design is a matter of non-challenge inducted M/s. Talsania and Brothers as their new tenant in the godown in question and so the said tenant was impleaded as a party and this firm is the opponent No. 4 in this application After the keen contest the trial court by its judgment dt. 18th July 1977 passed the order of eviction of the opponent No. 4 and a direction to