disputed the ownership of the property. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition filed by the tenant and dismissed the petition filed by the landlord. Challenging those orders, the landlords preferred separate appeals in R.C.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2017. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has also entertained the appeals and the same are pending. The petitioners, who are the landlords have filed interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos. 1 and 1 of 2019 in both the appeals stating that the door number of the suit schedule property has been mentioned as 95H/25A instead of 97H/2. The first Appellate Authority dismissed the applications on the ground that the applications have been filed belatedly in the Appellate stage. It is stated that even in the RCOP proceedings initiated by the tenant for deposit of rent and the power deed, which was executed by the landlords in favour of one Samraj Peter, the door number of the suit property was mentioned as 95 H/25A only. It appears that the mistake has been committed by both sides inadvertently and if it is not rectified, it would affect the further proceedings. Therefore, in order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, this Court is inclined to allow these Civil Revision Petitions.
