1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the following orders passed by the executing court in Regular Darkhast No.53 of 2012; (A) Order dated 28.09.2016 passed below Exhibit 98, (B) order dated 01.04.2017 passed below Exhibit 117 and (C) order dated 02.05.2017 passed below Exhibit 133.

2. The petitioner has therefore put forth prayer clause “A”, which reads as under:

"(A) The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of writ and thereby quash and set aside.

(i) the judgment and order passed below Exhibit 98 in Regular Darkhast No. 53 of 2012 dated 28.09.2016 by Civil Judge Junior Division, Dhule.

(ii) the judgment and order passed below Exhibit 117 in Regular Darkhast No. 53 of 2012 dated 01.04.2017 by Civil Judge Junior Division, Dhule.

(iii) the judgment and order passed below Exhibit 133 in Regular Darkhast No. 53 of 2012 dated 02.05.2017 by Civil Judge Junior Division, Dhule.

and may further be pleased to reject the application at Exhibit 98 and allow the applications at Exhibit 117 and 133 by issuing appropriate orders for the said purpose;"

3. I have heard the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioner/original tenant and respondent nos. 1 and 2, the original landlords. It needs mention that the original tenant has passed away and his heirs are on record.

4. Anand Hiraji Gawali was the tenant inducted by the original landlord Gulabchand Bhate in the suit shop property. Anand Hiraji Gawali inducted Haribhau Pundlik Gawali as a subtenant. Consequentially, Anand Hiraji Gawali lost the possession of the suit property to the subtenant Haribhau Pundlik Gawali. Gulabchand Bhate, the landlord preferred R.C.S. No. 454 on 16.09.1982 against Anand and Haribhau thereby seeking their eviction from the rented premises. The landlord proved before the trial court that the original tenant was in arrears, was a defaulter and has unlawfully sublet the rental premises to the second defendant Haribhau. It was further proved that Haribhau was occupying the suit premises as a tenant.

5. By judgment dated 13.07.1983, the trial Court, while drawing the above stated conclusions, decreed the suit and directed both the defendants Anand and Haribhau to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises. Certain orders towards payment of arrears of rent were passed and an enquiry was also directed to be held under Order XX Rule 12(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure for determining future mesne profits

6. The dispute was carried to the first appellate court by Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1984 which was filed only by Haribhau, who was inducted as a tenant by Anand. Anand passed away in the interregnum and his LRs were arrayed as the respondents in the appeal proceedings. The LRs of Anand did not choose to challenge the eviction judgment. The appellate court, vide judgment dated 07.09.1991, dismissed Haribhau’s appeal with costs to be paid to the landlord. The appellate court concluded that the landlord has proved that Anand had unlawfully sublet, assigned and transferred his interest in the suit shop in favour of Haribhau. This reveals the probable reason for the LRs of Anand not challenging the judgment of the trial court as Anand had already lost his possession of the suit shop. The appellate court concluded that Haribhau could not establish that he was the tenant of the suit shop owing to the combined effect of Sections 14 and 15 of the The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, “Bombay Rent Act”). The rest of the conclusions arrived at by the trial court were sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

7. Since Haribhau passed away during the above stated litigation, his LRs Yashwant Haribhau Gawali and Ashok Haribhau Gawali preferred Writ Petition No. 1078 of 1997 before this Court. By judgment dated 11.01.2012, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition and sustained the judgment of the appellate court. With this j