JUDGMENT

TULZAPURKAR, J. :— These appeals by special leave raise two questions for our determination : (1) Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Art. 227 was justified in interfering with a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the lower Courts in favour of the appellants? and (2) Whether the respondent was a protected licensee in respect of the suit premises under the Bombay Rent Act (No. 57 of 1947) as amended by the Maharashtra Act XVII of 1973?

2. This unfortunate litigation between eminent medical practitioners of Bombay has been hotly contested before us since it relates to professional accommodation of which there is great dearth in that city. The accommodation in question consists of a small cabin admeasuring 15-6" x 11-2" (approximately 175 sq. ft.) which is a part of the premises of Dr. Amonkar Hospital located on the fourth floor of Bombay Mutual Terrace at 534, Sandhurst Bridge, Bombay, of which one Dr. M. D. Amonkar. since deceased was the proprietor (whose heirs and legal representatives are the appellant-defendants before us, being his widow and two sons and three daughters, of whom one son and two daughters are medicos).

3. Dr