The amendment to Section 11(4) of the Rent Act applies retrospectively to pending suits, protecting landlords against unjust withholding of rent.

1. These two petitions arise out of the same order of the Court of first instance and raise an interesting question of law for decision.

2. One Kurban Hussein Rahamatalli owned a building called 'Tayeb Building' at Nagdevi Cross Lane, Bombay. Shop premises in that building were let out by him to a firm doing business under the name and style of Messrs. Keshavlal Narsidas. The agreed rent of the premises was Rs. 245.54 per month. As the firm fell in arrears of rent, Kurban Hussein gave notice to it on 16-11-1961 demanding the arrears of rent from 1-11-1959 and purporting to terminate the tenancy on the ground of non - payment of rent. To that notice Kurban Hussein received a reply dated 15-1-1962 wherein the firm asked for time to pay the arrears. No payment was, however, made even thereafter and on 15-2-1962 Kurban Hussein filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, leading to the present petitions.

3. In answer to the summons of the suit one Ramanlal Shah claiming to be the sole proprietor of the concern, put in appearance on behalf of the firm and filed his written statement on 26-7-1962. He did not raise any contention regarding standard rent or regarding the amount or arrears claimed in the suit but stated that the rent had remained in arrears on account of some dispute with the landlord about repairs to the premises and that he was ready and willing to pay the same. He contended that the firm had been dissolved and all the former partners were therefore, necessary parties to the suit.

4. In November, 1962 Kurban Hussein moved the Court for expediting the suit but was unsuccessful in his attempt. He died on 25-12-1963 while the suit was still pending and the seven petitioners who are his legal representatives were brought on record in his place.

5. On 1-6-1966 two persons named Parmanand M. Shah and Priyakant M. Shah made an application in the suit alleging that they were also partners of the firm along with Ramanlal and praying that they should be joined as defendants to the suit as Ramanlal was not likely to safeguard their interest. That application came to be granted and Parmanand and Priyakant were joined as defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on 22-7-1966. They filed separate written statements on 3-8-1966 but the contentions raised by them were common. One of the contentions was that the agreed rent was excessive and hence the standard rent should be fixed.

6. In the meantime on 26-7-1966 the petitioners had made an application to the trial Court under S.11 (4) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act'), praying for an order directing the defendants to deposit the arrears of rent. The application was opposed by all the defendants and after considering the contentions urged on behalf of the parties, the trial Court passed an order on 7-10-1966 in the following terms:
"9 (a) Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 do deposit in the Court Rs. 8225.08 on or before December 8, 1966, and further regularly deposit in Court Rs. 245.54 every month first of such payment being on January 8, 1967.
(b) If the defendants fail to comply with any part of the above order, they shall not be entitled to appear in or defend the suit except with leave of the Court."

7. Against the said order of the trial Court, Ramanlal filed a revision application on behalf of the firm before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, while Parmanand and Priyakant filed a similar but separate application before the same Bench.
The two applications were heard separately and decided on different dates. The application of Ramanlal was decided on 11-1-1967 while that of P