As per case facts, the premises were initially leased to the revision petitioner's predecessor. Ownership changed hands, eventually transferring to the respondent, a relative of the previous owner. Ejectment petitions ... were filed against the revision petitioners (tenants) for rent default and personal use. The revision petitioners argued the sale to the respondent was a sham, orchestrated to evict them after prior eviction attempts by a relative using special provisions failed. The lower authorities ordered eviction. The revision petitioners appealed to the High Court, asserting that the lower courts misread the evidence and failed to recognize the sale as a manipulative transaction. The question arose whether the lower authorities' findings were perverse, based on misapprehended evidence, or grossly erroneous, particularly regarding the sale deed's authenticity. Finally, the High Court determined that the lower authorities misread and misapplied critical evidence, concluding that the sale deed was a sham transaction designed to facilitate tenant eviction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower judgments, allowing the revision petitions.