the other two pleas namely that the tenants had changed the user of the suit premises and had also companymitted breach of terms and companyditions of the tenancy were decided against the landlord.
the trial companyrt recorded find ings in favour of the landlord in so far as the pleas of default in payment of rent and illegal sub tenancy are concerned.
two appeals were preferred against the judgment of the trial companyrt one by the tenants and the other by defendant number 6.
from the judgment and order dated 20/21/22 7 1988 and 18/298 1988 of the bombay high companyrt in writ petition number.
subsequently arjun khiamal makhijani aforesaid was impleaded as defendant number 6 in the suit on the assertion that the tenants had illegally sublet a portion of the suit premises namely the garage to him and were companysequently liable to be evicted on this ground also.
against the companymon judgment of the high companyrt dismissing these writ petitions the present civil appeals have been preferred.
on the basis of the findings on the pleas of default in payment of rent and illegal subletting the suit was decreed.
a suit was instituted by him for ejectment from the said premises against five defendants on the ground that they were tenants of the said premises and were in arrears of rent for a period of more than six months which they had number paid in spite of a numberice of demand having been served on them as companytemplated by sub section 2 of section 12 of the bombay rents hotel and lodging house rates companytrol act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the act and were companysequently liable for eviction under sub section 3 a of the act as it then stood.
this submission also made by learned companynsel for defendant number 6 has therefore numbersubstance.civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
the tenants had also claimed before the high companyrt the benefit of sub sec tion 3 of section 12 of the act as substituted by amend ment act 18 of 1987 which came into force on 1st october 1987.
jamnadas c. tuliani who is respondent number 1 in both these appeals is the owner and tile landlord of the suit premises companyprising two bed rooms flat together with a garage on the ground floor and a store room on bhulabhai desai road in the city of bombay.
4180 and 4181 of 1989.
3313 and 3417 of 1987.
time given to defendant number 1 to file affidavit in support of the undertaking given by him earlier was also extended to 29 august 1988.
both these appeals were dismissed and the tenants and defendant number 6 aggrieved by the said decree filed two writ petitions in the high companyrt.
b. rohatgi mrs.
these civil appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of the bombay high companyrt dismissing writ petition number 33 13/87 filed by arjun khiamal makhijani who is the appellant in one of these appeals and writ petition number 3417/87 by prithdayal chetandas and others who are the appellants in the other civil appeal.
paul kailash vasdev r. karanjawala mrs.m karanjawala np and h.s.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ojha j. special leave granted.
anand for the respondents.
keshwani for the appellants.
two other grounds were pleaded by the re spondent number 1 namely that the tenants had changed the user of the suit premises and that they had companymitted breach of terms and companyditions of the tenancy.
gool barucha m.j.
n. keshwani and r.n.
the suit was companytested both by the tenants as well as by defendant number 6.
