( 1 ) THE petitioners-plaintiffs are the owners of the suit premises consisting of two rooms admeasuring 10'x 12', situated on the first floor of the house No. 108, Ganesh Peth, Pune. The respondents-tenants are the original defendants are in occupation of the same on monthly tenancy basis and using the same, basically for residential purpose. The Landlords, suit for eviction was decreed by order dated 29th March, 1989, against the respondents-tenants and thereby directed to recover the possession of the suit premises. The original defendant No. 1, therefore, preferred the appeals and the same were allowed. In the result the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, was set aside. The petitioner landlord, therefore, have invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the constitution of India and challenged the impugned judgment, dated 27th July, 1992.

( 2 ) THE present writ petition was admitted on 6th March, 1992. The order is, as passed Rule on question relating to ground of "change of user" and "nuisance".

( 3 ) HEARD Mr. Anturkar, the learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, who apart from the ground of change of user submitted that the ground of bona fide need, can be borne out from the admitted position on the record to be a ground in favour of the landlord and therefore, he may be allowed to submit and raise the contention on the said ground of bona fide need. The leaned Counsel mr. R. S. Apte, appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Rairkar, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2, however, resisted the same. The submissions to the extent that once the rule is issued and restricted to the particular ground, then there is no question of leading petitioner or any party on any other ground. In the present case, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has given up the ground of nuisance and is pressing the claim on the ground change of user and bona fide need.

( 4 ) NOW therefore, the question is at the stage of final hearing of such writ petition, whether such restriction at the time of admission itself is sufficient to curtail the arguments of the parties. Even, when there are materials on the record to suggest that the other grounds are also available grounds for the relief, as sought by the petitioners. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in support of his contention pointed out Chapter XVII of Bombay High Court appellate Side Rules, 1960, Rules 5, 8 and 11 and both the Counsel also relied on extract of Rule 17 of the said Chapter. Those Rules are as under :

"rule 5 - The Court may either summarily dismiss the application or order rule nisi to be issued against the opponent against whom it is sought, as it deems fit. Any rule so granted shall be made returnable, except as otherwise ordered by the Court, within a period which shall not be less than 14 days after the service thereof on the opponent. "

"rule 8 (i) - Rule nisi granted as above shall, along with a copy of the interim or interlocutory order, if any, be served on the opponent in the manner prescribed in order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the service of a summons upon a defendant in a suit. "

"rule 11 - An answer to rule nisi showing cause against such application shall be made by filing at least two days before the returnable date of the rule an affidavit in the office of the Registrar, a copy whereof shall be served upon the applicant. "

"rule 17 - Applications under Articles 227 and 228. . . . . . . Provisions of Rules 2 to 16 above shall apply mutatis mutandis to all such application. "the Rules are not assisting to the submission made by the respondents to restrict the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in any way.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on 1982 Mh. L. J. (S. C.) 835 = 1982 (1) SCC 433, Ramji Bhagala vs. Kirshnarao Karirao Bagra and another and emphasised that in view of the provisions of sections 100 and 101 and Order