JUDGMENT - Cazi A.A., J.:—This Court had passed an order on 6th January, 1992 making absolute the rule issued earlier, and quashing order dated 22nd June, 1979 passed by the trial Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 1888 of 1967 and the order dated 31st August, 1984/lst September, 1984 passed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No. 500 of 1979, and Suit No. 1888 of 1967 was ordered to stand dismissed, and no orders were passed regarding costs. That order dated 6th January, 1992 was an ex parte and the same was set aside on 9th January, 1992. It is in these circumstances that this writ petition is heard today. 2. Respondent No. 1 as landlady, filed Suit No. 1888 of 1967 against Habib Yusuf Bhimji (original defendant No. 1 who has died and whose heirs are present petitioners) and against respondent No. 2 (original defendant No. 2) for recovering possession of the suit premises on various grounds under the Bombay Rent Act. Mr. Sayed submitted that only one ground was pressed by the landlady-respondent No. 1 viz., that her tenant Habib Yusuf Bhimji had unlawfully sublet the premises to respondent No. 2-Abdul Kader Lalmohamed, and that in view of the fact that the law has been amended in 1987 providing for sub-letting prior to 1st February, 1973, ceasing to be a ground for eviction, the first respondent's suit must necessarily be dismissed. The withdrawal of grounds other than sub-letting as is urged by Mr. Sayed can be seen from the order dated 4th October, 1979 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. That order reads as follows:— “The application is for stay of execution of the decree for possession obtained by the respondents in the above suit. The respondents have filed a caveat and Mr. Tunara who appears for the respondents states that the respondents obtained an ex parte decree which was set aside by the High Court and the hearing of the suit was expedited. The respondents obtained a decree after trial on the ground of unlawful sub-letting. There are other grounds also in the plaint but Mr. Tunara makes a specific statement that the respondents had already given up the other grounds in the trial Court. He also states that he is not pressing the grounds other than unlawful sub-letting. He requests for expeditious hearing of the appeal. There are other grounds also in the plaint but Mr. Tunara makes a specific statement that the respondents had already given up the other grounds in the trial Court. He also states that he is not pressing the grounds other than unlawful sub-letting. He requests for expeditious hearing of the appeal. In view of this, while granting the stay of execution, the hearing of the appeal should be expedited. ORDER Execution of the decree is stayed till the hearing and final disposal of the appeal. The hearing of the appeal is expedited subject to 1970 and earlier appeals. At the request of the appellants, the appellants are allowed to deposit the rent in the suit as per original order. Moneys already deposited and as and when deposited in Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 1888 of 1967 to be paid over to respondent No. 1 only on account and without prejudice. Mr. Tunara waives service of the appeal for the respondents. The appeal is fixed for hearing on 23rd January, 1980.” 3. Mr. Tunara, Counsel for respondent No. 1, however urged that the ground of profiteering was not available to the 1st respondent simultaneously with the ground of unlawful sub-letting and that it is by the amendment in the law made in 1987 that the ground of sub-letting ceased to be available to the 1st respondent and therefore automatically the ground of profiteering became available to the 1st respondent and therefore when the 1st respondent stated that she had given up the other grounds in the trial Court all that was meant was that the grounds which were unconnected with the grounds of unlawful sub-letting were given up and not the ground of profiteering which would arise only if the ground of unlawful sub-letting was disallowed. For that purpose Mr. Tunara drew my attention to the judgment of the trial Court and to the issues reproduced therein. The issues and the findings thereon are as follows: “ISSUES FINDINGS 1. Whether the plaintiff proves In the affirmative. that original defendant No. 1 has sublet the part of the suit premises to defendant No. 2 unlawfully and illegally? 2. Whether defendant No. 2 proves In the negative. to be a lawful sub-tenant of deceased original defendant No. 1 or protected tenant under the provisions of Bombay Rent Act? If so, whether original defendant No. 1 was profiteering? 3. that original defendant No. 1 has sublet the part of the suit premises to defendant No. 2 unlawfully and illegally? 2. Whether defendant No. 2 proves In the negative. to be a lawful sub-tenant of deceased original defendant No. 1 or protected tenant under the provisions of Bombay Rent Act? If so, whether original defendant No. 1 was profiteering? 3. Whether plaintiff proves that In the negative. orignial defendant No. 1 has wrongfully converted the kitchen into a living room and the hall into a kitchen room? 4. Does plaintiff prove that In the negative. the original defendant No. 1 has made unauthorised additions and alterations by erecting a cooking platform in the hall and making changes in the kitchen room? 5. Does plaintiff prove that In the negative original defendant No. 1 has damaged the suit premises and committed acts contrary to the provisions of Clause (c) of section 108 of T.P. Act? 6. Wether plaintiff is entitled In the negative. to get the possession of the premises on the ground of non-payment of rent? 7. Whether the tenancy of the In the negative. original defendant No. 1 was validly and legally terminated by quit notice? 8. Whether defendant No. l(a) and In the negative. 1(e) prove that the present plaintiff waived the right to recover possession of the suit premises for the reasons stated in paras 2 and 3 of the Written Statement? 9. Whether the suit against In the affirmative. defendant No. 2 is maintainable? 10. What reliefs to plaintiff? As per final order. 11. What order and decree? As per final order.” Mr. Tunara then took me to the reasons given by the trial Court, and finally drew my pointed attention to the reasons for the findings on Issues Nos. 1 and 2. The specific portion of the judgment to which my attention was drawn so far as Issues Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned is where it is stated: “I also further hold that defendant No. 2 has failed to prove that he is a protected tenant under the provisions of Bombay Rent Act. In view of my above findings on Issues Nos. 1 and 2 the question as to whether the original defendant was profiteering or not does not arise. I answer Issues Nos. 1 and 2 accordingly.” Mr. In view of my above findings on Issues Nos. 1 and 2 the question as to whether the original defendant was profiteering or not does not arise. I answer Issues Nos. 1 and 2 accordingly.” Mr. Tunara then submitted that this would indicate that respondent No. 1 did not press all grounds of eviction except the ground covered by Issues Nos. 1 and 2. 4. It must be pointed out that on 4th October, 1979 the 1st respondent requested for expeditious hearing of the appeal and for this purpose she, through her Advocate, made the statement that she had already given up the other grounds in the trial Court and “he also states that he is not pressing the grounds other than unlawful sub-letting.” The landlady's Advocate made this statement before the Lower Appellate Bench for the specific purpose of obtaining an order for expeditious hearing of the appeal and having made this statement the Appellate Bench granted his request and ordered that the hearing of the appeal be expedited. What would be the position if at that time, prior to the 1987 amendment in the Rent Act, the Appellate Bench had decided the question of unlawful sub-letting against the landlady could the landlady than ask the Appellate Bench to decide the ground of profiteering? Clearly the answer is “no”. Even before the law was changed in 1987 the landlady could have pleaded the ground of profiteering. It was not a new ground introduced in 1987 as an alternative after legalising sub-letting and it was given up though available. 5. Mr. Tunara cited before me a number of decisions. Those are (1) 1975(1) S.C.C. 770 , (Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu v. Motor General Traders)1, (2) 1974(1) S.C.C. 675 , (Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha)2, (3) 1951 S.C.R. 2, (Srinivas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prased others)3, (4) 1952 S.C.R. 179, (Kidar Lall Seal Another v. Hariball Seal)4, and (5) 1987 Bombay Rent Cases 61. It is true that events subsequent to the date of filing of the suit can be taken into account to mould the relief or to give a different relief to the plaintiff as is pointed out in these various authorities. None of these authorities however deals with a case where an order has been obtained by a party from the Court by giving up any particular plea. None of these authorities however deals with a case where an order has been obtained by a party from the Court by giving up any particular plea. Under these circumstances, it is not now open to respondent No.1 to press any ground for eviction other than the ground of unlawful sub-letting. 6. As regards the ground of unlawful sub-letting that is now no longer available to respondent No. 1 in view of the change of law in 1987 as was pointed out in my judgment and order dated 6th January, 1992. For the reasons mentioned in that judgment, therefore, the 1st respondent's suit No. 1888 of 1967 would have to be dismissed. Hence, the following order: ORDER Rule is made absolute. The order dated 22nd June, 1979 passed by the trial Court in R.A.R. Suit No. 1888 of 1967 and the order dated 31st August, 1984/1st September, 1984 passed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No. 500 of 1979 are quashed and Suit No. 1888 of 1967 stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----