( 1 ) [ed. facts. : Plaintiff had let out tenanted premises to Deft. no. 4, a company of Defts. 2 and 5 on 19 6. 74 @ Rs. 6000. 00 p. m. After a few months Deft. no. 1 was accepted as tenant on same terms. Deft. no. 1 was mostly owned by Deft. no. 2 and in the tenanted premises Deft. no. 2 was residing with family members. Plaintiff on 12. 12. 88 gave notice terminating tenancy asking possession by last day of the month. Plaintiff on 10. 3. 89 filed suit for possession and asked mesne profits, after termination of tenancy and on expiry of notice period, at market rate of premises at Rs. 50,000. 00 p. m. Defts. 4 and 5 filed W/s in March, 90 saying that tenancy had been transferred in the name of Deft. no. 1 and they had no interest. Defts. 1 to 3 did not file W/s until 17. 8. 90 when their defence was struck out. They appealed to D B. and meanwhile filed W/s so that they could tell D. B. that W/s had been filed. D. B. allowed W/s to be taken on record upon heavy costs. They contended that Amended Rent Act allowing exemption to premises of rent above Rs. 3500. 00 was unconstitutional; that Deft. no. 1 alone was not tenant and several associate companies were tenants who we