1. Delay condoned.

2. The petitioners claiming to be tenants in relation to the property in dispute averred that they were paying a rent of Rs. 300 per month vide Rent Deed dated 28th October, 1991, with respondent nos. 2 & 3. There was dispute whether the premises were under management of these two respondents or it was the property of Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. The suit was filed for declaration and injunction and an application for interim injunction was also filed. Vide order dated 30th May 2000, the injunction was granted in their favour. Appeal against the said order was accepted by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Class 7, Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur vide its order dated 19th October, 2005 and the order of Trial Court dated 30th May, 2000 was set aside. The application for injunction stood dismissed. Against this order, the Civil Revision was filed by the petitioners which also came to be finally dismissed vide order dated 1.11.2006. The High Court found that the order of theDistrict Judge was not only well-reasoned but correctlyappreciated the principles which would govern the dispute between the parties. The courts returned the finding that the Trial Court had ignored the fact that Nigam possessed the full right to get the disputed Chabutra vacated and had there been any tenancy, the same stood terminated as back as in the year 1987. The property was encroaching upon the road as is evident even from the photographs filed before us including Exh. P-1.

3. Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.11.2006, an LPA was filed before the Division Bench of that High Court which remained pending, of course, without any reason for a considerable time and the same was dismissed as not maintainable, as no appeal could lie against the order of the learned Single Judge exercising its revisional jurisdiction or powers under Article 227. Challenging the order of the High Court, the present Special Leave Petitions have been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.11.2006 and order of the Division Bench dated 27.5.2011.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the very outset and very fairly, stated that she is not pressing her argument that the order of the Division Bench dated 27.5.2011 was unsustainable in law. Actually no appeal could lie against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.11.2006. The Division Bench had relied upon the full Bench judgment of that Court in that regard. Thus, we do not wish to comment on that ground in any further detail.

5. As far as the merits are concerned, we see again no reason to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. It is, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prime facie case and balance of evidence that the injunction application of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned ADJ and that order was affirmed by the learned Single Judge. We see no reason to interfere in the order and would dismiss these petitions.

6. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as an alternative, submitted that less they are evicted by the respondents in absence of order of injunction, they may be granted some time to vacate the said premises. We also feel that the petitioners could be granted some time to vacate the said premises.

7. Therefore, we direct the petitioners to vacate the premises by 31st October 2011 subject to their filing usual undertaking to this Court. In that event, they would also continue to pay the damages for use and occupation of the premises till that date without default and would not hand over the possession to any other person except the respondents herein.Then the petitioners would not be evicted from the premises till that date.

8. However, we make it clear that it is an option to the petitioners to take advantage of this direction or not.

9. If such an undertaking is not filed within two weeks from today, the special leave petitions as afore-noted shall stand dismissed.