R.A.JAHAGIRDAR, J. - (1.) This petition raises a question of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act". The petitioners are a firm carrying on business at 94, Kazi Syed Street, Bombay- 400 003. The first respondent is a private limited company of which respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are the Directors. The petitioners had filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. That suit is R.A. Declaratory Suit No. 2298 of 1978. In the plaint filed in the said suit, the petitioners had given the history of a previous litigation between themselves and the respondents and had contended that as a result of the decree passed in the earlier suit, to which reference will be made shortly, they had become entitled to get from the respondents an aggregate carpet area of 1,375 square feet on the ground floor and 560 square feet carpet are on the mezzanine floor of a building which had been constructed at Kazi Syed Street at the same place where originally another building had stood. They also mentioned that the respondents had not given to them possession of the area mentioned above and had, on the other hand, given possession of an area which was much smaller. It was also their grievance that the area, possession of which had been given to them, was not according to the map which had been originally annexed to the decree that was passed. They, therefore, prayed for possession of the area as mentioned above and at a place which according to them had been marked in the place referred to above.
(2.) At this stage I must proceed to mention the previous litigation between the parties. R.A.S. uit No. 1130/5838 of 1975 had been filed by the respondents against the petitioners and one Hasmukhlal Manilal. Hasmukhlal Manilal was defendant No. 1 while the petitioners were defendant No. 2 in that suit. It was the case of the respondents in that suit that defendant No. 1 was the original tenant and the petitioners had been illegally inducted in the building which was situated at 94, Kazi Syed Street, by the said Hasmukhlal Manilal. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it was mentioned that Hasmukhlal Manilal, in breach of the provisions contained in the Rent Act and also in breach of the terms of tenancy, unlawfully sublet to the petitioners the ground floor admeasuring 1, 375 square feet and mezzanine floor admeasuring 200 square feet forming part of the suit premises in that suit. It was also alleged in that suit that the first defendant was charging the petitioners a sum of Rs. 1,050 whereas the monthly rent of the suit premises was Rs. 509. Thus it was alleged that the first defendant in that suit was profiteering. Paragraph 4 of the plaint alleged that the respondents required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their own use and occupation and that they intended to "pull down the present building and re-erect a new building with a view partly to use the same for their own use and partly for letting it out." Possession of the premises was prayed for on these grounds.
(3.) The suit was filed on 24th of November, 1975 and within a short time thereafter, that is on 4th of December, 1975, the parties arrived at a compromise and consent terms were filed. The consent terms are in great details and will be the subject-matter of comments and discussion later in this judgment. Broadly speaking, it may be mentioned that the consent terms provided that the tenancy of Hasmukhlal Manilal, defendant No. 1 in that suit, stood terminated and he was to submit to a decree for eviction. It was also provided that if the petitioners vacated the suit premises, the respondents would demolish the existing structure and re-construct a new building as per the sanctioned plans and thereafter they would let out to the petitioners, who were stated to be the statutory tenants, premises in the new building as mentioned thereafter in the consent terms. The modality of working out the delivery of possession pursuant to the decree that would be passed as per the consent terms and the re-delivery of possession of an area in the newly constructed building was also mentioned in the consent terms. Paragraph 7 of the consent terms further stated that the respondents shall let and hand over possession to the petitioners as a monthly tenant an aggregate carpet area of 1,375 square feet on the ground floor and 560 square feet carpet area on the mezzanine floor as marked red on the plan annexed as Exhibit A thereto. It has also been mentioned that the premises shall have the situation, height, width, length etc., as mentioned on the said plan. Several undertaking relating to the delivery of possession of the premises were given in the consent terms. The learned trial Judge on 4th of December, 1975, passed the following order :--- "Decree against defendant No. 1 to vacate forthwith. Decree against defendants No. 2 to vacate by 10th December, 1975. Undertakings of the parties accepted. No order as to costs. Refund 1/2 institution fees to plaintiffs.";