KHANWILKAR. A.M., J.:---Both these writ petitions can be disposed of together by a common judgment as the issues involved are common and arise out of derivative proceedings during the execution of the decree passed in favour of the petitioners in R.A.E R. Suit No. 928/5431 of 1977.

2. The petitioners are the owners and landlords of building known as "Construction House" at Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038. The petitioners filed suit for eviction against the respondent No. 1 tenant in respect of the demised premises, being RAE R Suit No. 928/5431 of 1977. The said suit was decreed by the Small Causes Court on 17th February, 1992 directing the respondent No. 1 to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the petitioners. The respondent No. 1, however, carried the matter in appeal, which appeal was rejected by the appellate Bench on 30th April, 1993. Against this order the respondent No. 1 filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being Writ Petition No. 3010 of 1993. Even that writ petition came to be rejected on 15th September, 1993. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 took the matter before the Apex Court by way of Special Leave petition which was eventually dismissed on 15th October, 1993. After the decree passed against the respondent No. 1 became final, the petitioners took out execution proceedings for possession of the demised premises on October 18, 1993. The Executing Court was pleased to issue order for warrant of possession on November 8, 1993. On an application on 25-11-1993 and 14-12-1993 the petitioners got the date of execution of warrant extended from the Registrar. Eventually, when the warrant of possession was sought to be executed on December 17, 1993 with the help of Bailiff, the same was obstructed by 12 persons named in the Bailiff's report of the same date, which included respondent Nos. 8 and 9 herein as obstructionist Nos. 7 and 8 respectively. All those persons claimed to be in lawful possession of the demised premises for more than last ten years, whereas the partners of the respondent No. 1 were not found in the demised premises during the execution. The Bailiff report dated 17-12-1993 mentions the above claim made by the said 12 persons who had obstructed the execution. Going by the claim of those persons as recorded in the Bailiff's report, they were inducted by the respondent No. 1 in the demised premises only in or around ten years prior to 1993 i.e. around 1982, which is obviously during the pendency of the suit for recovery of possession instituted against the respondent No. 1 in the year 1977. This assumes relevance as even the respondent No. 1 defendant at no point of time during the action against him right from the trial Court till the Apex Court ever indicated that some one else was in occupation of the suit premises. If this is correct then these obstructionists have no protection under the provisions of the Rent Act and could not have justly resisted the execution. All those persons who obstructed the execution on 17-2-1993 have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 to 14 in these writ petitions. In view of the obstruction caused by the said persons, petitioners took out obstructionist Notice before the Executing Court on January 15, 1994. In the said notice the petitioners clearly asserted that the obstructionist were claiming through the original defendants and obstruction has been caused mala fide and without any just cause and obviously at the behest of the original defendant respondent No. 1 herein. According to the petitioners, the obstructionists were the employees and the sister concerns of the original defendants; and that they were not protected under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act for which reason the obstruction caused by them will have to be removed forthwith. The record indicates that this obstruction notice was moved before the executing Court on January 15, 1994 and that court was pleased