JUDGMENT

KANIA, J. :- Leave granted. The appeal is taken up for final hearing. Counsel heard.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The appellant is the owner of a bungalow known as "Villa Hormazd" at 8-A Carmichel Road, Bombay. The suit premises, comprising two floors of the said bungalow, were leased to Mayer Mills Ltd. under a lease deed dated April 16, 1948 for a period of three years from November 1, 1947. At that time, the bungalow belonged to the father of the appellant. On the death of the father of the appellant in 1949, the appellant became the landlady of the said bungalow. Respondent No. 1, B. R. Cotton Mills Ltd., is the successor-in-interest of Mayer Mills Ltd. and at the relevant time was in possession of the suit premises as a tenant. Respondent No. 2 is the Chairman of respondent No. I and the other respondents are some of the Directors of respondent No. 1. The appellant filed a suit being R.A.E. No. 763/65-63 of 1966 in the Small Cause Court at Bombay for eviction of respondent No. 1 from the suit premises and for possession on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. During the pendency of this suit, another suit for eviction was also filed by the appellant against respondent No. 1 for eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent for a period of more than six months. The Trial Court by its judgment dated September 13, 1975 decreed the aforesaid eviction suit R.A.E. No. 763 / 6563 of 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the said suit) but the other suit for eviction filed by the appellant was dismissed in view of the eviction decree passed in the said suit, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal against the decree for eviction but the said appeal was dismissed. In February 1986, the husband of the appellant died and after that the appellant is the landlady of the said bungalow. On the other hand, the appeal of the appellant against the dismissal of her other suit, for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent was allowed and that suit was also decreed against respondent No. 1. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court at Bombay challenging the decrees for eviction passed by the Court of Small Causes as aforestated. On February 27, 1987, respondent No. 2 filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes for a declaration that he was the lawful sub-tenant of the suit premises and was not bound by the decrees of eviction passed in respect of the suit premises against the tenant, namely, respondent No. 1. The said Writ Petition No. 1066 of 1987 filed by respondent No. 1 challenging the decrees for eviction passed against respondent No. 1 in the said suits and confirmed in appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court on March 6, 1983. The learned Judge by his judgment and order of the same date, dismissed the said writ petition. The relevant part of the order of the learned Judge reads as follows:

"The petitioner requests for time of eight weeks to vacate the premises. He is granted the said time subject to executing written undertaking that he shall not part with the possession of the suit premises or create third party interests in the suit premises in the meantime in any manner whatsoever."

3. On March 11, 1987, the matter was brought up again before the learned single Judge by learned counsel for the appellant for pointing out that respondent No. 1 had not filed the requisite undertaking as directed under the order dated 5-3-1987. It appears that at that stage it was pointed out to the Court by Mr. Dalvi, learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 2 had filed a declaratory suit in the Court of Small Causes as aforestated claiming to be the sub-tenant of tile suit premises. The order of the learned .Judge dated March 11, 1987 shows that the learned Judge stated that he did not wish to take any action at that time on the conduct of respondent No. 1 but, as a last chance, granted respondent