Pasayat, J. -- Leave granted.

Though controversy lies within a very narrow compass, elaborate arguments on various principles of law were highlighted, which shall be dealt with after noticing the factual scenario involved.

Factual background as highlighted by the appellant and accepted to be correct in material aspects by the respondents runs as follows : the appellant, a nationalized bank, on the basis of a deed of lease executed on 8.4.1964 is a tenant under the respondents presently. The original landlord was the respondents' predecessor-in-title. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the landlords") filed a suit under section 13(1) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (in short "the Bombay Rents Act") in 1983 seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the landlord by an order dated 8.4.1994. It was held that the landlords had proved reasonable need and greater hardship would be caused to the landlords if prayer for eviction is not allowed. The said order was challenged in Appeal No. 208 of 1994 before the Small Cause Court, Mumbai by the present appellant, which was allowed. It was, inter alia, held that the hardship factor must be held against the landlords as the case was one where a purely business concern is pitted against the interest of the common man. It was noticed that the landlords had a flourishing business and had expanded their business and the present appellant being a nationalized bank existing for the general public, and in that view of the matter the prayer for eviction was turned down. The landlords challenged the aforesaid order by filing Writ Petition No. 5668 of 1995 before the Bombay High Court, which is pending. In the year 1999, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Maharashtra Rent Act") was enacted w.e.f. 31.3.2000. The said Act, according to the appellant bank, took away protection of the Bombay Rents Act to institutions like banks and companies. However, provisions of section 58 save pending proceedings under the said Act. On 10.4.2000 the landlords sent a notice to the appellant Bank claiming termination of tenancy with reference to section 3(1) (b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act. The appellant Bank disputed the claim of the landlords. Subsequently, a suit was filed in the Small Cause Court, Mumbai under the Maharashtra Rent Act bearing No. TE and R Suit No. 91/120 of 2000. In the suit the landlords sought vacant possession of the suit premises and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000 per month.

The appellant Bank filed the written statement refuting the stands taken that the tenancy had been lawfully terminated and the grounds indicated therefor. Reference was made also to the proceedings in the Bombay High Court under the Bombay Rents Act. It was contended that in view of section 58 of the said Act, the suit was not maintainable. The Small Cause Court, Mumbai passed judgment and decree in favour of the landlord holding that the suit was maintainable, the tenancy had been validly terminated and directed the appellant Bank to hand over possession of the suit premises to the landlords. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant Bank filed Appeal No. 718 of200 1 before the appellate Court which dismissed the same by the order dated 12.7.2002. The appellant Bank filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 209 of 2003 in the Bombay High Court.

On 7.1.2003 an application for amendment of the writ petition was filed seeking to challenge the validity of provisions contained in section 3(1) (b) of Maharashtra Rent Act. The High Court by the impugned order while allowing the application for amendment held that the case was covered by section 3(1) (b) of the said Act and the writ petition was dismissed.

Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that after having allowed tj1e amendment relating to validity of section 3(1