A.V.SAVANT, J. - (1.) BY consent of all the learned Counsel, the four Letters Patent Appeals are taken up for hearing together in view of the common question of law arising therein pursuant to the orders passed by the Apex Court. We will briefly indicate the broad facts of these four appeals.
(2.) LETTERS Patent Appeal No. 126 of 1997 is filed by the tenant against the Judgment and Order dated 10th March, 1997 in Writ Petition No. 6011 of 1996. The appellant is admittedly a tenant of the suit premises protected by the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Bombay Rent, Act'). The respondent -landlord filed the suit before the IInd Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Barshi, District Solapur for possession on the ground of default in payment of rent and permanent construction on 7.1.1987. The suit was decreed on the 11th October, 1995 only on the ground of default in payment of rent. The ground of permanent construction was rejected. The tenant filed Civil Appeal No. 361 of 1995 in the Court of the IInd Additional District Judge, Solapur, who, by his Judgment and Decree dated 26th July, 1996, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent finding decreeing the suit of the landlords for eviction under the Bombay Rent Act, the tenant had filed Writ Petition No. 6011 of 1996. The title of the Writ Petition mentions 'In the matter of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India'. The learned Single Judge treated the petition as one under Article 227 and by his Judgment and Order dated 10th March, 1997 dismissed the petition. In the course of the Judgment, the learned Judge observed at more than one place that the petition was filed under Article 227. It is this Judgment dated 10th March, 1997 which is challenged before us in L.P.A. No. 126 of 1997. This L.P.A. was initially heard at the admission stage on 19th August, 1997 when the following order was passed: - P.C. Admit. 2. Ad interim relief to continue. 3. The learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent states that this Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable as the learned Single Judge has decided the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. As against this, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the petition has filed the Writ Petition under Article 226 and, therefore, there is no question of treating the Writ Petition as one under Article 227 of the Constitution. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar and Ors. v. Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha and Ors. : AIR1992SC185 . 5. As this question is required to be decided, the Letters Patent Appeal is admitted. Against the above Order dated 19th August, 1997, the respondent landlord approached the Apex Court by Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 816 of 1999 and the Apex Court passed the following order on 1st February, 1999: - ORDER Prima facie the writ petition appears to be filed under Article 227 but as the High Court has admitted the Letters Patent Appeal and has kept the question of law open for examination, we do not say anything further on this point. We only request the High Court to dispose of Letters Patent Appeal within two months. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. That is how the appeal is placed before us for deciding the question as to whether the Letters Patent Appeal is competent in the facts of the case before us.
(3.) THE second matter viz., L.P.A. No. 31 of 1998 is also by the tenant against the Judgment and Order dated 14th January, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1232 of 1989. The appellant claims to be a tenant protected by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. Civil Suit No. 2655 of 1982 was filed by the respondents -landlords before the Principal Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. On 15th June, 1985 the suit was decreed. The appellant -tenant filed Civil Appeal No. 862 of 1985, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Pune, on 2nd February, 1989, Against the said Judgment and Decree, the appellant -tenant filed Writ Petition No. 1232 of 1989 in this Court. In the title of the petition, it is specifically mentioned as under: - In the matter of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. and In the matter of provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The learned Single Judge by his Judgment and Order dated 14th January, 1998 dismissed the said petition. It is this order which is challenged before us in L.P.A. No. 31 of 1998. This appeal was admitted on 19th February, 1998. That order was challenged in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2741, 2742 -43, 2744 and 2745 of 1999. The Apex court passed the following order on May 7, 1998: - ORDER Leave granted. Heard Counsel. In all these matters the question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal in the High Court is argued. In support of that learned Counsel places reliance on Umaji Keshao Meshram and Ors. v. Radhikabai (widow of Anandrao Banapurkar) and Anr., : [1986]1SCR731 . Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, also cites authorities to support the maintainability. We consider that it is appropriate for the High Court to consider the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue and decide the matter at an early date. We, therefore, request the High Court to dispose of the question of maintainability preferably within one month after the reopening of Courts after summer vacation. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. It must be stated that the Order quoted above is a common order under which L.P.A. Nos. 31 of 1998 and 32 of 1998 were directed to be heard on the question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal as a preliminary issue. ;