Judgment

ORDER :- This and the connected petitions pray for special leave to appeal to this Court against the refusal of the Bombay High Court to grant relief under Article 227 of the Constitution in the matter of the dismissal of six declaratory suits filed by the petitioners.

2. The first respondent, Ahmed R. V. Peer Mohamed, is the owner of a property, "Peerbhai Mansion", situate on Vithalbhai Patel Road, Bombay. He let out the entire first floor to the second respondent, Smt. Saraswatibai Dahyabhai Bhatt. The first floor consisted of a hall and three rooms and an adjoining terrace. It seems that Saraswatibai sub-divided the hall into a number of cabins, and transferred them to the occupation of the petitioners in this and the connected special leave petitions. The landlord served a notice dated July 28, 1962 on her terminating her tenancy and thereafter filed an ejectment suit No. 576/5157 of 1962. A decree for ejectment was passed in 1966. An appeal by Saraswatibai was dismissed in 1972. The landlord took out execution of the decree. Obstructionist notice was served on all the petitioners and was made absolute in favour of the landlord on February 27; 1974. The petitioners appealed, and on Nov. 30. 1976 these appeals were dismissed.

3. The six petitioners then filed separate suits Nos. 5734 to 5739 of 1976 against the landlord for a declaration that they were lawful sub-tenants or licensees entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and for a permanent injunction restraining the landlord from executing the decree for ejectment obtained against Saraswatibai. During the trial of the suits the sole issue pressed before the trial Judge was whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Act as lawful sub-tenants or as deemed tenants or as protected licensees. The trial Judge ruled that they were not so protected and he dismissed the suits on March 29, 1978. The petitioners appealed. The only point raised in appeal was whether the petitioners could be described as lawful sub-tenants or protected licensees. Affirming the findings of the trial Judge the appellate Court held that the petitioners were inducted into the premises after 1960 and, therefore, were not entitled to be regarded as lawful sub-tenants. It found that Saraswatibai had become a statutory tenant on the termination of her tenancy by the notice dated July 28, 1962, and the petitioners were her licensees and after the decree for ejectment against Saraswatibai on September 30, 1966 her rights and interest in the premises came to an end and from that date the licensees were not entitled to any statutory protection. Accordingly, the appellate Court maintained the dismissal of the suits filed by the petitioners.

4. The petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 227 (if the Constitution before the High Court, and the High Court after hearing the parties rejected the petitions by its order dated July 15, 1981. These petitions for special leave to appeal are directed against that order.

5. Mr. Soli Sorabjee, appearing for the petitioner in S. L. R. No. 5631 of 1981, contends that the. petitioner must be regarded as a licensee entitled to the benefit of sub-section (2) of Section 14 read with sub-sec. (1) of Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. He urges that in virtue of the definition of "licensee" set forth in. sub-section (4-A) of Section 5 of the Act, that is to say, a person who is in occupation of the premises under a subsisting agreement for licence, the petitioner must be regarded as a licensee in occupation on February 1, 1973, and therefore a tenant falling within the terms of sub-section (1) of Section 15 A. On that, learned counsel says, the petitioner must be deemed, pursuant to sub-section (2) of Section 14, to be a tenant of the landlord, the first respondent, on the terms and conditions of the agreement. Now, there can be no doubt that if the peti