O R D E R

C.S.Sudha, J. The three R.C.Ps. from which these revisions arise, were initiated by the landlords in the year 1994. 29 long years have elapsed. The 3 rd petitioner for whom the need was put forward was a young man aged 40 years when the R.C.P.s were filed. Now he must be around 70 years. The lis is yet to reach a finality. Here it would be apposite to refer and quote a paragraph from the decision of the Apex court in Shakuntala Bai v. Narayan Das, AIR 2004 SC 3484 which reads-

“1. It is a shocking case. A suit for eviction of a tenant was instituted more than 42 years back in March, 1962 for the bona fide need of carrying on business by the owner landlord but his widow and sons are still knocking the doors of Court of justice. During the pendency of the appeal filed by the tenant the landlord died leaving a widow and minor sons but this, the High Court thought, came to the advantage of the tenant, rendering the suit liable for dismissal, little realizing that they also needed some place to carry on business for survival. Such extreme views erode the faith of people in the judicial system prompting them to take recourse to extra judicial methods to recover possession of t