JUDGMENT

N.D. OJHA, J.

(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) THESE civil appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of the Bombay High court dismissing Writ Petition No. 3313 of 1987 filed by Arjun Khiamal Makhijani who is the appellant in one of these appeals and Writ Petition No. 3417 of 1987 by Prithdayal Chetandas and others who are the appellants in the other civil appeal. Jamnadas C. Tuliani who is respondent 1 in both these appeals is the owner and the landlord of the suit premises comprising two bedrooms flat together with a garage on the ground floor and a store room on Bhulabhai Desai Road in the city of Bombay. 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 not paid in spite of a notice of demand having been served on them as contemplated by Ss. (2 of S. 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and were consequently liable for eviction under Ss. (3(a) of the Act as it then stood. Two other grounds were pleaded by respondent 1 namely that the tenants had changed the user of the suit premises and that they had committed breach of terms and conditions of the tenancy. Subsequently, Arjun Khiamal Makhijani aforesaid was impleaded as defendant 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 consequently liable to be evicted on this ground also. The suit was contested both by the tenants as well as by defendant 6. The trial court recorded findings in favour of the landlord insofar as the pleas of default in payment of rent and illegal sub-tenancy are concerned. The other two pleas namely that the tenants had changed the user of the suit premises and had also committal breach of terms and conditions of the tenancy were decided against the landlord.-On the basis of the findings on the pleas of default in payment of rent and illegal subletting, the suit was decreed. Two appeals were preferred against the judgment of the trial court, one by the tenants and the other by defendant 6. Both these appeals were dismissed and the tenants and defendant 6 aggrieved by the said decree filed two Writ Petition in the High court. Against the common judgment of the High court dismis- sing these Writ Petition, the present civil appeals have been preferred.

(3) BEFORE dealing with the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties it may be pointed out that even though the finding that the tenants were defaulters in payment of rent has been upheld by the High court, the other finding namely that the tenants had illegally sublet the garage of the suit premises to defendant 6 has been set aside and it has been held accepting the case of the tenants that defendant 6 was a trespasser. The tenants had also claimed before the High court the benefit of Ss. (3 of S. 12 of the Act as substituted by Amendment Act 18 of 1987 which came into force on 1/10/1987. This plea too was repelled. Defendant 6 before the High court on the other hand took up the plea that in view of the finding in the suit that he was an illegal sub-tenant of the garage since 1967, he was entitled to the benefit of Ss. (2 of S. 15 of the Act as amended by the aforesaid Amendment Act 18 of 1987. The High court repelled this pleas on the finding that he was not a sub-tenant but a trespasser and also on the ground that he was not in possession on 1/02/1973, the relevant date mentioned in the said sub-section. The High court also held that benefit of Ss. (2 of S. 15 as amended, could not be given to defendant 6 in a writ petition, the same being not a proceeding contemplated by S. 25 of the Amendment Act. In order to. appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it will be useful to extract Ss.