N.J. PANDYA, J.:---These appeals arise out of the order dated 4-10-1990 of the learned Single Judge Mr. S.M. Daud, J., in Writ Petition Nos. 35 of 1983 and companion petitions of 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1989. On an earlier occasion. Appeal No. 258 of 1991 arising out of Writ Petition No. 35 of 1985 was treated as the main appeal and all the parties concerned were heard in it and by a common judgment dated 11th/12th March, 1993 it came to be allowed.

2. The matter went before the Supreme Court and by an order dated 31st October, 1995, the appeals came to be allowed and as a result the order of the Division Bench passed in Appeal No. 258 of 1991 on 12th March, 1993 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to this Court.

3. In the aforesaid background, we will have to first ascertain the manner in which the appeal after remand is to be dealt with by us. Two grievances were made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. One was that in the course of the hearing of the appeal before the earlier Division Bench when on the suggestion of the Bench a proposal ("the compromise proposal") was put forth by the appellant. Port Trust the whole matter was gone into on that basis and while considering this proposal submitted in the appeal, the impact of the order of the learned Single Judge Mr. Daud, J. on that proposal was not examined at all. The second grievance is of the intervenors who were permitted to participate in the proceedings pursuant to an earlier order of another Division Bench during the pendency of the appeal. Notices under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. were directed to be issued and were in fact issued. The intervenors appearing in response to the notices under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. have to be heard as a matter of right. They were not heard that was the grievance and therefore the intervenors are to be heard.

4. Before proceeding further we shall have to give the factual background leading to the dispute which came before this Court by way of writ petitions delivered by the learned Single Judge Mr. Daud, J. The appellants, Bombay Port Trust has vast tracts of land covering almost 1/8th of the area of land of Mumbai. With a view to develop the Port this land was made available to the Port Trust which was constituted under the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879. After enactment of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 and subsequent amendments thereto, the Bombay Port Trust came to be governed by the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.

5. However, one common feature running through the legislative history relating to the constitution of the Port Trust is that the Trust was sui juris and was to have and to hold immovable properties. The power to deal with the same including that of letting out the land was also with the Trust. On account of the exercise of power relating to the properties of the Port Trust as stated above of the large tracts of land available with the Bombay Port Trust majority of lands were leased out on either monthly basis 15 monthly basis or long term basis with or without an option of renewal. The Port Trust before the onset of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and other Orders, Enactments and Ordinances pertaining thereto was fixing the rent for which the properties were let out to the respective holders. After the enactment of the Rent Act, the Port Trust continued to revise the rent from time to time. It is an accepted position that under the Rent Legislation namely Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 like any other local authority, Bombay Port Trust was exempted vide section 4 of the said Act.

6. Upto 1982 or thereabout, there have been periodical revisions of rent which is an admitted position. B.P.T. regularly raised the lease rents in the case of all classes of lessees by 25% every 5-6 years and in very year from 1976 onwards, thereby resulting in an annual rent increase of around 4-5%. In the case of the Coal Depot, rents at the minimum level were raised from 31 paise