SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:---This is an unfortunable piece of litigation. The petitioner before me was the plaintiff in the trial Court. He got a decree for possession in his favour. The decree was set aside by the Appellate Court. As will be seen from the final order, the petitioner is succeeding so far as the present petition is concerned. However, as to when the present petitioner will reap the fruits of this decree is anybodys guess.

2. The facts of the case are follows :---

a) This litigation arises out of the Bombay Rents, Hotel, Lodging House Rates, (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act). The property in question is part of final Plot No. 606/A and 606/B numbered as C.T.S. Nos. 1225/A-1, 1225/1-B-2. The property in dispute originally admeasured 11,000 sq. feet situated at a very prestigious road called Fergusson Road in Poona. The property originally belonged to one Trimbak Hari Awate. On 28-4-1947 the said Awate executed a simple mortgage in respect of the entire property in favour of one Mr. Vaidya. The mortgage amount was Rs. 20,000.

b) The Rent Act came into force on 13-2-1948. On 7-7-1948 a lease deed was executed by said Awate in favour of present defendant No. 1 Shankar Godaji Gore. It appears that defendant No. 1 was a building contractor. The lease-deed is Exhibit 183 in the trial Court. The purpose of the lease was mentioned as residence and shops. Defendant No. 1 was to construct structure upon the open land was to let out the structure or a part of it. The period of lease was 25 years and the agreed rent was Rs. 1500 per annum. However, the rent was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 125 per month. This fact is relevant with the question as to whether the rent was payable per month or not. The lease deed contains a stipulation that if the lessee committed default in the matter of payment of rent for a period of three years, the lease was to be forfeited and the lessor was entitled to re-enter.

c) There was no clause in the deed prohibiting assignment or sub-lease as such. Having regard to the provisions of the Act, therefore, it could be said that the assignment or sub-letting was not specifically prohibited by the lease-deed. As to what would be the effect of the provision of section 15 of the Rent Act, which came into force on 13-2-1948, will have to be considered later.

d) On 17-2-1949 defendant No. 1 Gore executed a registered sub-lease in respect of the entire land in favour of Solochanabai Anandrao Thakur and Krishnabai Balasaheb Sarde, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. This sub-lease was for a period of 99 years 9 months. Strangely enough, the rent agreed was Rs. 50 per month. Incidentally it may be mentioned that both defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were the near relations of defendant No. 1. Defendants No. 3 Krishnabai appears to be the daughter of defendants No. 1 Gore and defendants No. 2 Sulochanabai is also a very near relation.

e) Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 constructed 14 shops on a portion of the land, which was the subject matter of the lease-deed, Exhibit 183. Some of these shops were let out to various persons. In this petition, we are not concerned with the precise details etc. of those various lettings. Suffice here it is to know that after constructing the said shops they came to be let out to various persons. Those persons in their turn assigned their right, title and interest to others. All the persons who are having some interest in those shops have been impleaded in this litigation as party defendant.

f) On 7-11-1949 an area of 4000 sq. feet was sub-let by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to Sardar Bhiwalkar, who was original defendant No. 4 in these proceedings. The rent agreed was Rs. 135 per month and the period of lease was 67 years. The lease in question is Exhibit 185 in the lower Court. It appears that on the same day defendants Nos. 2 and 3 also sold 7 out of the 14 shops to self same defendants No. 4. It appears further that the 7 shops were constructed on that portion of the la