Chagla, J.

[1] This seems to be a very gross case in which the assistance of this Court is sought. It seems that a notice, was served upon the landlord of a building situated at Bohra Street in Colaba under Section 354, Municipal Act, and the landlord was called upon to repair the building as it appeared to be in a dilapidated state. In October 1948 the landlord filed an application under Section 507 and an order was made by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay, under that section on 1711-1918, and the order was to the following effect: The petitioners in the two petitions, who are the tenants of the landlord, were ordered to give to the landlord all reasonable facilities to enable him to carry out work in accordance with the municipal requisition dated 23-6-1948. In particular, the petitioners were ordered to vacate as a temporary measure the premises in their occupation by 31-12-1948, and to give leave and licence to the landlord to enter upon the premises for the purpose of carrying out the work in accordance with the Municipal requisition. The landlord undertook to commence the work immediately the petitioners vacated and to complete the work within two months thereafter and to reinstate the petitioners in their respective rooms forthwith on the completion of the repairs, and the matter was adjourned for compliance to 2-3-1949.

[2] Now, this order makes it clear that the tenants were to give up possession to the landlord for a specific purpose in order to enable the landlord to carry out the repairs which he was bound to carry out under a requisition served upon him by the Municipality. It is also clear that the landlord's possession was that of a licensee and he was there by the leave and licence of the tenants. It is equally clear that as soon as the repairs were carried out, the tenants were to be restored to possession. It is equally clear that although the tenants gave up their possession, their tenancy continued and the relationship of landlord and tenant was subsisting. Pursuant to this order the petitioners vacated their respective premises. On March 10 the application of the landlord again came up before the learned chief Judge. It appeared that the work had not been completed by March 2 and the petitioners had not been reinstated. Therefore, the learned Chief Judge passed the following order, viz. that the landlord was ordered to complete the work by April 16, and the matter was adjourned for compliance to April 18. On April 18 it seems from the order passed by the learned Chief Judge that the landlord came forward with a totally different story. His contention seemed to be that the Municipality had ordered him to demolish the building and not to repair it and, therefore, the learned Chief Judge passed an order to enable the landlord to produce an order from the Municipality declaring the building as irreparable and requiring the demolition of the same, and the matter was adjourned to 27-4-1949. On 27-4-1949, again it seems to appear from the order passed by the learned Chief Judge that no such order was produced before him and, therefore, the learned Chief Judge passed the following order : "petitioner is ordered finally and peremptorily to carry out work required by the Municipal requisition immediately and to complete the same and reinstate the respondents in their respective premises by 31-5-1949. " it also seems clear from this order that the learned Chief Judge did not accept the contention of the landlord that he had to demolish the building and, therefore, he called upon him to carry out the repairs and to reinstate the tenants by 31-51949. It appears that nothing further happened in this application which was filed by the landlord, but the facts disclose that instead of repairing this building and reinstating the tenants by 31-5-1949, as he was required to do by the learned chief Judge's order, the landlord took the law into his own hands, demolished the building in 1952 and constructed a n