B. N. AGRAWAL, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals by special leave have been filed against separate orders rendered by a division Bench of the Bombay High Court in letters Patent Appeals whereby the same have been dismissed as not maintainable, thereby confirming the common judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High court in three writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India [hereinafter referred to as 'the Constitution'].

( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are that the Belfer Cooperative Housing Society limited, Bandra [west], Mumbai, respondent No. 1 in Civil appeal Nos. 2990-2991 of 2005, [hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'], which was a tenant co-partnership housing society, held both lands and flats constructed thereon and Dr. Gopal Mahadeo Dhadphale, respondent No. 2 in the said appeals [hereinafter referred to as 'the member'] was admitted as member of the Society in the year 1962 and flat No. 4 on the ground floor was allotted to him. On 3. 6. 1982, the member inducted M/s. Anita enterprises, appellant No. 1 in the said appeals, in room No. 2 of the said flat on a monthly rental of Rs. 1000/- and on 3. 10. 1983 the appellant aforementioned was inducted in room No. 3 as well on a monthly rental of rs. 750/ -. The member thereafter inducted m/s. Anita Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. , appellant No. 2 in the said appeals, in room no. 1 of the flat in question on a monthly rental of Rs. 1000/- which was subsequently enhanced to rs. 1500/- per month and both the appellants were put in possession of the aforesaid premises. The appellants paid rent upto the month of December, 1986 and as the member refused to accept the rental from January, 1987, the rental was sent to him by cheques under registered post, but the same was not accepted.

( 3 ) THEREUPON, the appellants were asked to vacate the premises in question which necessitated filing of two separate suits by them in the year 1987 before the Small Causes Court for a declaration that they were tenants with regard to the aforesaid premises of which they were in occupation and for perpetual injunction restraining the member from interfering in any manner with their possession over the premises in question in which suits only the member was made party and not the Society. The member in the said suits contested the claim of the appellants and both the suits filed by the appellants were dismissed by the trial court upon a finding that the appellants were not inducted as tenants in the suit premises. But on appeal being preferred to the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, the same were decreed and it was held that the appellants were inducted as tenants in the premises in their occupation.

( 4 ) IN the meantime, the Society raised a dispute in the year 1989 before the Cooperative court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra cooperative Societies Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Societies Act'] praying therein that the appellants be evicted from the premises in their occupation and the member be directed to occupy the same as, according to the Society, the member had parted with possession of the premises in question in favour of the appellants which was not permissible in law. The said case was contested by the appellants in which the member and the appellants entered appearance and all contested the claim of the society. The Cooperative Court by its award decided the dispute in favour of the Society, passed an order of eviction against the appellants and directed the member to occupy the premises. The said order was upheld in appeal.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, before the High Court three writ petitions were filed - one by the appellants against the aforesaid order passed by the appellate court upholding order passed by the cooperative Court and the other two writ petitions by the member against the order passed by the appellate bench of the Small Causes court whereby aforesaid declaratory suits filed by the appellants were decreed. A learned single Jud