1. These Civil Revision Petition have been filed against the fair and final order dated 22.06.2011 made in E.A.No.913 & 914 of 2003 in E.P.No.301 & 291 of 2001 in O.S.No.204 of 1983 and O.S.No.1340 of 1978 respectively on the file of Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioners in both the CRPs are applicants in E.A.Nos.913 & 914 of 2003 in E.P.Nos.301 & 291 of 2001 in O.S.Nos.204 of 1983 & 1340 of 1978. The respondents in E.A.Nos.913 & 914 of 2003 are petitioners in E.P. and defendants in the suit.

3. The petitioners filed the above suit for determination of tenancy and ejectment of respondent. At the time of filing of the suits, according to the petitioners, they did not know the constitution of first respondent and its partners. The petitioners described the first respondent as partnership firm and subsequently found to be incorrect. Trial in the suit proceeded under a mistake of fact till 1998. The first respondent's partners initially were one R.Krishnasamy Naidu and N.Ramansamy Gounder who took on the lease of vacant site, being the properties in the suit. Without the knowledge of the petitioners, they appeared to have divided their interest and Nirmala Engineering Works came to be managed by R.Krishnasamy Naidu and Nirmala Industries was managed by N.Ramasamy Gounder. The first respondent firm is for a fixed period of five years with Regn.No.1706/1950. The first respondent filed petition under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act. By the order dated 22.06.1993, the amount to be deposited by the first respondent was quantified and the first respondent was directed to deposit the said amounts within two years from the date of that order. On 17.06.1995, the first respondent, i.e. Nirmala Engineering Works deposited the amounts so quantified. On that date, there was no firm known as Nirmala Engineering Works. The second respondent in CRP (PD) No.4921 of 2011 registered the firm Nirmala Engineering Works only on 26.06.1995 with new partners. Similarly, as far as Nirmala Industries is concerned, N.Ramasamy Gounder died on 31.03.1990 leaving C.N. Ramaswamy and other partners. The partnership is at will and on the death of N.Ramasamy Gounder, the firm ceased to be in existence. Both the firms were newly constituted one and both the firms are not entitled to get the benefit under Tamil Nadu Chennai City Tenants Protection Act. Only after depositing the amounts on 17.06.1995, the death of N.Ramasamy Gounder was informed to Registrar of Firms and two days after deposit of money into the court, the firm was renewed from the year 1992 to 1995. The respondents have suppressed the material fact and played fraud on the court and order passed in the application filed by the first respondent under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act is nullity. The petitioners came to know of this fact only recently. The first respondent obtained order by misleading the court. The petitioners counsel issued notice to the counsel for the respondent to produce all the relevant records relating to registration of firm and names of the partners. The first respondent's Advocate did not comply with the same. The first petitioner obtained certified copies of the relevant records and he came to know about the fraud played by the respondent in obtaining order in the application filed under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act and hence the said order is nullity. The petitioners, in the circumstances filed E.A Nos.913 & 914 of 2003 praying to hold an enquiry under Section 47 of CPC to declare that the order passed in I.A.Nos.473 of 1983 and 220 of 1979 as nullity and to pass necessary further orders.

4. The respondents filed counter and denied various allegations made by the petitioners. According to the respondents, they filed petition under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act and court determined the minimum extent required by respondents and fixed the market value of the said extent. By