JUDGMENT

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted. Parties will be referred by their ranks in the first matter arising from the suit for possession in RCS No.278/1993.

2. The case of appellants is as under : The appellants are brothers and are the owners of premises No.289 (New No.424) Gandhi Chowk, Vita (described in schedule `A' to the plaint and referred to as the `said property'). Two rooms in the said property, one measuring 10' 6" x 22' and the other measuring 10' x 10' (described the schedules B and C to the plaint and together referred to as the "suit portions") are the subject matter of the dispute. The said property originally belonged to Ranganath Bhandare, who was living in the said property with his wife Laxmibai (mother of the appellants), two sons (appellants 1 and 2) and a daughter. After the death of Ranganath Bhandare, the daughter got married in 1984 and started living separately. Appellant No.2 got married in 1985 and shifted to Sangli in connection with his employment in the beginning of 1986. Appellant No.1 was away at Pune in connection with his employment. Thus appellants' mother Laxmibai who was aged and suffering from several complaints was staying alone in the said property from the middle of 1986. The second respondent (Chhaya) was engaged in or about the year 1985 as a servant to look after Laxmibai and was allowed to reside in one room as a licencee without any rent. In November 1986, Laxmibai died. The second respondent requested the appellant for some time to vacate the room stating that she would leave as soon as she got some alternative accommodation. As second respondent had looked after their mother and their property, the appellants agreed for her continuing as licencee for some time. She did not however vacate.

3. Taking advantage of the fact that the owners were not around, she and the first respondent (Sadhu) with whom she had a `living-in- relationship', broke open the door of another room (10' x 10') and occupied it. Further, first respondent started asserting that he is the tenant of the suit portions (two rooms) and filed RCS 114/1993 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vita, against the first appellant, seeking a permanent injunction. In these circumstances, the appellants filed RCS No.278/1993 for possession of the suit portions, contending that respondents were gratuitous licencees regarding one room and unauthorized encroachers in respect of second room. They also sought damages/mesne profits for wrongful occupation.

4. The suit was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the first respondent (second defendant) was the husband of second respondent (first defendant); that they were in occupation of the suit premises as tenants on a monthly rent of `25 from February 1982; that the rent was increased to `60/- per month from 1988; that the appellants illegally disconnected the electricity supply to the suit portions on 25.8.1991 and tried to forcibly evict the respondents; that the first respondent had therefore lodged a complaint under section 24(4) of the Bombay Rents Hotel, and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (`Rent Act' for short) and filed an application for fixation of standard rent under section 11 of the Rent Act. They also alleged that the appellants prevented them from carrying out repairs to the premises which was in a dilapidated condition and were threatening to evict them from the premises. Therefore, the first respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction in RCS No.114/1993 to restrain the first appellant from dispossessing him from the premises without due process of law.

5. The suit for permanent injunction (RCS No.114/1993) filed by first respondent was resisted by the first appellant. The averments in the plaint and written statement in the suit for injunction were the same as the averments in the written statement and plaint respectively in the suit for possession filed by appellants.

6. Both suits were tried together. The trial court decreed b