V.C. Daga, J.

1. This petition is filed at the instance of the obstructionists, who have obstructed execution of eviction decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai, in RAE Suit No. 577/1303 of 1992, in favour of respondent No. 1, Landlady and against original defendant Nos. 1 to 3, the tenants (respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 herein) on the ground that landlady required house for her own of bona fide occupation. Parties to the petition are referred to as per their original status for the sake of brevity.

The Facts :

The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are as under :

1. 2. The petitioners are occupants of adjoining flat No. 8 in a building known as "Ragie Annexe", M.M. Chotani Road, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016, whereas dispute relates to flat No. 7 located in the same building.

2. 3. The original tenant-Mrs. Una C. Saldanha along with Anthony Saldanha and Rev. Fr.Chrys Saldanha, the original defendants in the suit were tenants of one Mr. Marine Sequeria. Mrs. Marine Sequeria, Landlady filed a suit for eviction and permanent injunction against her tenants being RAE Suit No. 577/1303 of 1992 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. After the death of defendant No. 1, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were treated as parties to the suit in their own capacity as well as legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 1. In the said suit defendants suffered decree for eviction and permanent injunction on 6-8-1998; whereby defendants were directed to put plaintiff in possession of the suit premises and they were permanently restrained from inducting any third person or party in the suit premises. This decree has become final and conclusive.

3. 4. The above decree for eviction was put to execution by the original plaintiff-decree holder. The execution of the decree was obstructed by one Moh. Zahid Idris Qureshi, petitioner No. 4 herein; along with Smt. Taiba Qureshi, Nasrin Qureshi and Shehnat Qureshi, with others; with the result, original decree holder, respondent No. 1 was required to take out notice for removal of obstruction, registered as Notice No. 69/1998.

4. 5. On being noticed, the obstructionist No. 5-Zahid Qureshi (petitioner No. 4) appeared before the executing Court. He filed his objection in the nature of reply to the Obstructionist notice contending that he is in the occupation of the said flat as a tenant. He also alleged that he was having documentary proof in his possession to establish his tenancy rights. He, thus, claimed to be in possession of the suit premises in his own rights. After receipt of counter affidavit, rejoinder was filed by the decree holder.

5. 6. The petitioner No. 4 herein; moved an application to amend original affidavit dated 28th July, 2000, and sought to incorporate certain additional pleadings so as to introduce story of surrender of tenancy rights by the original tenant respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and creation of fresh tenancy in favour of the said obstructionist on payment of premium (Pagadi) said to have been paid in cash prior to the execution of the agreement to the landlady-decree holder.

6. 7. By way of extension of the story sought to be put up by the obstructionist, it was urged that the original tenant- Mrs. Saldhanha had surrendered her tenancy rights in the premises in favour of Shri Shahid Qureshi and Mr. Zahid Qureshi, Obstructionist Nos. 4 and 5 and that the said surrender was accepted by the original plaintiff-decree holder. Thereafter, on 18-7-1992 tenancy agreement was executed between the original decree holder (respondent No. 1 herein) and one of the obstructionist No. 5, Zahid Qureshi. It was further alleged that another tenancy agreement came to be executed on 11-8-1997 by respondent No. 1 in favour of obstructionist No. 5, Zahid Qureshi and he was asked not to disclose the said agreement since suit for eviction was pending in the Small Causes Court. In this view of the understanding between the parties to the agreement, it was not disclosed.

.8. Th