In the nature of the order I propose to pass, it is unnecessary to serve notice on respondents 4 to 7.

The petitioner filed R.C.P. No. 56/80 under Ss.11 (2), II (3) and II (4) (iii) of the Rent Control Act for recovery of the premises, against respondents 4 to 7 herein, who are the legal representatives of one Gopalan. who had executed the koolikychit Document No. 880/1939 in favour of the petitioner-landlord. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition on the ground of arrears of rent only. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order. However, the District Court in revision allowed the petition on the ground of bonafide need also. Respondents 4 to 7 challenged the order of the revisional court in CRP. 3532/83 before this court. The C.R.P. was dismissed on 17-7-1985. Against the said order, respondents 4 to 7 filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12529 of 1985 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition passed the following order:

"After hearing counsel appearing on both sides we are not satisfied that this is a fit case for interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. However, we feel that having regard to the