http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: NAGJI VALLABHJI & COMPANY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MEGHJI VIJPAR & COMPANYMEGHJI VIJPAR (DECEASED)THROUGH HIS L

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1988

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. PATHAK, R.S. (CJ)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1313            1988 SCR  (3) 906  1988 SCC  (3)  68        JT 1988 (2)   534  1988 SCALE  (1)997

ACT:      Bombay Rents,  Hotel and  Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947-sub-section (4)(a) of section 4-Interpretation of- Dispute between  sub-tenant and tenant regarding eviction of sub-tenant from premises in occupation of sub-tenant.

HEADNOTE:      This  appeal   raised  a   short  question  as  to  the interpretation of  sub-section (4)(a)  of section  4 of  the Bombay Rents,  Hotel and  Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 ("the Bombay Rent Act").      The appellants  were the  sub-tenants of the respondent No. 1 Firm in respect of the premises called Gala No. 4 in a godown. Respondent  No. 1  Firm were the tenants of the said godown, having taken a lease of the building from the Bombay Port Trust.  The appellants  were in  occupation of the said Gala under written agreements executed from time to time for one year  each. The  last such  agreement  expired  on  19th October, 1971.  The respondent No. 1 Firm served a notice on the appellants on 13th January, 1972 to hand over possession of the  said gala on the ground that the period of lease had expired. By  notice dated  February 3,  1972, the respondent No. 1  Firm terminated  the tenancy  of appellants  and then filed a  suit in the City Civil Court against the appellants to recover  possession of the premises in dispute inter alia on the  ground that  the period  of lease  had expired.  The appellants took  up the contention that they were not liable to be  evicted as they were entitled to protection under the provisions of  the Bombay  Rent Act.  The City  Civil  Court decreed the  suit. On  appeal by  the appellants,  the  High Court (Single Judge,) holding that the notice of termination of tenancy  dated 3rd February, 1972, was a valid notice and the provisions  of the  Bombay Rent Act did not apply to the premises in  question, upheld  the decree of eviction passed by the  City Civil Court. Letters Patent appeal against this judgment was  dismissed by  a Division  Bench  of  the  High Court. The  appellants then  moved this  Court for relief by special leave.      Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 907 ^

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

    HELD: The only submission made by the appellants before the Court  was that the said premises, viz, Gala No. 4, were entitled to  the protection  of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and the respondent No. 1 Firm was not entitled to a decree for eviction as no grounds for eviction under the Act had been made out. [910G]      The question  raised was  whether the protection of the sub-section (4)(a)  of section  4 of the Bombay Rent Act was available to  the sub-lessee  in a  building leased  by  the lessee from the Government or a local authority or put up by a lessee  of the land belonging to the Government or a local authority but  not under  any building  lease or pursuant to any obligation  imposed on  the lessee to put up a building. In this  case, the  entire building in which the premises in question, namely,  Gala No. 4 were situated, belonged to the Bombay Port  Trust. It was nowhere contended at any stage by the appellants  that the building in which the said premises were situated  was put  up by the respondent No. 1 Firm. The Court  was,  therefore,  not  directly  concerned  with  the position of a sub-lessee in a building put up by a lessee of the land  taken from  the Government  or a  local  authority without being under any obligation to do so. [913D-F]      A plain  reading of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Bombay Rent  Act makes  it clear  that the provisions of the Bombay Rent  Act are not applicable to premises belonging to the Government or a local authority. Sub-section (4)(a) only takes out  from the  scope of  the  exemption  conferred  by section 4(1)  "a building  erected on  any land  held by any person from  the Government  or a  local authority  under an agreement, lease,  licence or  other grant,  although having regard to  the provisions  of such agreement, lease, licence or grant  the building  so erected may belong or continue to belong to the Government or the local authority, as the case may be".  If this  provision were  to be  as  including  any building put  up or  erected on land held by any person from the Government  or a  local authority,  the result  would be that such  protection would  be available  even against  the Government or  a local  authority and  the provision of sub- section (1)  of section  4 may be rendered largely nugatory. The provisions  of sub-section (4)(a) were never intended to take away the immunity conferred upon the premises belonging to  the   Government  or  a  local  authority,  and  if  the provisions of  section 4(4)(a) were to be construed as urged by  the   appellants,  this   immunity  would   be  rendered practically nugatory.  A plain  reading of the provisions of sub-section (4)(a)  in the  context clearly shows that there is no  intention therein  to take  a building  put up by the Government or  a local  authority  from  the  scope  of  the exemption conferred by sub-section (1) of section 908 4. The language of sub-section (4)(a) and sub-section (1) of section 4  of the  Bombay Rent  Act, read together, suggests that it  was only  in respect  of a  building put  up by the lessee on  the Government  land or  the land  belonging to a local authority  under a  building agreement  that the  sub- lessees were  taken out  of the  exemption contained in sub- section (1)  of section  4 and  allowed the  benefit of  the provisions of  the Bombay  Rent Act. It was significant that the exemption  granted under the earlier part of sub-section (1) of  section 4  is in  respect of the premises and not in respect  of   the  relationship.  In  order  to  confer  the protection of  the provisions  of the Bombay Rent Act on the sub-lessees occupying  the premises  in any building erected on the  government land  or the  land belonging  to a  local authority irrespective  of the  question who  has put up the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

building as  against the  lessees of  the land  but  without affecting the  immunity conferred on the government or local authorities as  contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the  Bombay Rent Act, the Court would have to practically rewrite the  provisions of section 4, and it was not open to the Court  to do  that.  The  argument  of  the  appellants, therefore, could  not be  accepted. The learned Judge of the High Court  was right  in coming  to the conclusion that the premises in question were not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. [914A-H;915A]      The decision  of this  Court  in  Kanji  Manji  v.  The Trustees of  the Port  of Bombay, [1962] Suppl. 3 S.C.R. 461 cited by  the appellants  was of  no assistance  to the case before the Court, and the decision of this Court in Maneklal and Sons  v. Trustees of Port of Bombay and Others, [1984] 4 S.C.C. 733  cited by the appellants, far from supporting the submission of the appellants, militated against it. [916D]      There was  no merit  in the  appeal and  it must  fail. Taking  the   facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  into consideration, the  Court directed that the appellants would not be  evicted from the premises in question until December 31, 1988. [916E]      The  Court  observed  that  if  the  intention  of  the legislature was  that the  protection should be given to the sub-lessee against  the lessee  in a building taken on lease by the  lessee from  the government or a local authority, it was  for  the  legislature  concerned  to  make  appropriate amendments in  the Bombay  Rent Act  and it was not open for the Court  to re-write  the provisions of sub-section (4)(a) of section  4 of  the Bombay  Rent Act  on the ground of any such intention  as suggested  by Dr. Chitale counsel for the appellants. [916F] 909      Bhatia Co-operative  Housing Society Ltd. v.D.C. Patel, [1953] 4 S.C.R. 185; Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay,  [1962] Suppl. 3 S.C.R. 461; Maneklal and Sons v. Trustees of  Port of  Bombay and Others, [1984] 4 S.C.C. 733 and Ram  Bhagwandas v.  Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, AIR 1955 Bom. 364, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4248 of 1986.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated 22.9.86 of the High Court of Bombay in L.P.A. No.66/86.      Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Kailash Vasudev and A.J. Dholakia for the Appellants.      S.A. Dave,  E. Maqbool  and Mrs. M. Karanjawala for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KANIA, J.  This Appeal,  by Special Leave granted under Article  136   of  the  Constitution,  raises  a  short  but interesting question as to the interpretation of sub-section (4)(a) of  Section 4  of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates  (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Rent Act").      As the  only point  canvassed before  us is  a point of law, the relevant facts can be shortly stated.      The Appellants  are the sub-tenants of Respondent No. 1 Firm in  respect of  Gala No.  4 or  Bay No.  4 in  a godown situated at  the Grain  Market at  Dana  Bunder  in  Bombay. Respondent No. 1 Firm were the tenants of the said premises, namely, the  said godown in which the said Gala is situated,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

having taken a lease of the building in which it is situated along with  the land  on which  the building stands from the Bombay Port  Trust under a written agreement. The Appellants were in occupation of the said Gala under written agreements executed from  time to  time for  a period of one year each. The last  such agreement  was executed on 7th November, 1970 and was to expire on 19th October, 1971, that is, at the end of Samvat  year 2827.  Respondent No. 1 Frim served a notice through their  advocate on  the Appellants  on 13th January, 1972 to  hand over  the possession  of  the  said  premises, namely, the  said Gala (referred to hereinafter as "the said premises") 910 inter alia  on the  ground that  the period of the lease had expired. In  their  reply  dated  14th  January,  1972,  the Appellants contended  that they  were lawful  sub-tenants of Respondent No.  1 Firm  in respect  of the said premises and were entitled  to the  protection of  the Bombay  Rent  Act. Respondent No.  1  Firm  in  their  reply  denied  that  the Appellants were  entitled to  protection under the said Act. Respondent No. 1 terminated the tenancy of the Appellants by their notice  dated February  3, 1972. In the correspondence ensued thereafter  between the  parties, they repeated their respective stands.  Respondent No.  1 filed  a suit  in  the Bombay City  Civil Court  to recover  possession of the said premises. The  Appellants in their written statement took up the contention  that they  were not  liable to be evicted as they were  entitled protection  under the  provisions of the Bombay Rent  Act. The  Bombay City  Civil Court  decreed the suit of  Respondent No. 1. On an appeal by the Appellants, a learned Single  Judge of  the Bombay High Court remanded the suit to  the Bombay  City Civil Court for recording findings on two  questions, namely, (1) as to who were lessors of the defendants whose  monthly tenancy commenced in the year 1957 and  (2)  whether  that  tenancy  was  legally  and  validly terminated. On  remand the Bombay City Civil Court held that the lessors  of the  Appellants in  1957 were one Maghji and Kanji and that the tenancy of the Appellants was not validly terminated. Thereafter  the Appeal of the Appellants came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. He  held that  the notice  of termination  of tenancy dated 3rd  February, 1972 was a valid notice terminating the Appellants’ tenancy  and that  the provisions  of the Bombay Rent Act  did not  apply to  the premises  in question.  The learned  Single   Judge  upheld   the  decree   of  eviction originally passed  by the Bombay City Civil Court. A Letters Patent Appeal  was preferred  against  this  judgment  to  a Division Bench  of the  Bombay High  Court but  the same was dismissed by  a short order. This Appeal is directed against the judgment  and order  of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.      The only  submission made  before us  by  Dr.  Chitale, learned Counsel  for the  Appellants, was  that the impugned judgment was  erroneous and  liable to  be set  aside as the said premises, namely, the said Gala No. 4, were entitled to the protection  of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and Respondent No.  1 Firm  was not  entitled to  a  decree  for eviction as  none of the grounds for eviction under that Act had been made out.      It may  be mentioned  here that for the purpose of this Appeal  we   intend  to   proceed  on  the  assumption  that Respondent No. 1 Firm has 911 not made  out any ground which would entitle him to a decree for eviction  under Section  13  of  the  Bombay  Rent  Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

Section 12  of the  Bombay Rent Act provides that a landlord shall not  be entitled  to the recovery of possession of any premises so  long as the tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay  the  amount  of  the  standard  rent  and  permitted increases, if  any, and  observes  and  performs  the  other conditions of  the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the  provisions of  the Bombay  Rent  Act.  Section  13 provides that  notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the Bombay Rent  Act but subject to the provisions of Section 15 and 15A,  a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any  premises if  the court  is satisfied with any of the grounds set out in that section is made out. Sub-section (1) of Section  4 of  the Act  which deals  with the  Exemptions reads as follows:           "4. Exemptions.-                (1) This  Act shall not apply to any premises           belonging to  the Government  or a local authority           or apply as against the Government to any tenancy,           licence or  other like  relationship created  by a           grant from or a licence given by the Government in           respect of  the premises requisitioned or taken on           lease or  on licence  by the Government, including           any premises  taken on behalf of the Government on           the basis  of tenancy  or of licence or other like           relationship by,  or in  the name  of any  officer           subordinate to  the Government  authorised in this           behalf; but  it shall apply in respect of premises           let, or  given on  licence, to the Government or a           local  authority   or  taken   on  behalf  of  the           Government on  such basis  by, or  in the name of,           such officer."      Sub-section (4)(a)  to Section  4 which  was introduced into the Bombay Rent Act by the Bombay Act 4 of 1953 runs as follows:           "18(4)(a). The  expression "premises  belonging to           the Government  or  a  local  authority"  in  sub-           section   (1)   shall   notwithstanding   anything           contained  in  the  said  sub-section  or  in  any           judgment, decree  or order of a court, not include           a building  erected on any land held by any person           from the  Government or a local authority under an           agreement, lease, licence or other grant, although           having regard to the provisions of such agreement,           lease, licence  or grant  the building  so erected           may belong or continue to belong to the Government           or the local authority, as the case may be". 912      It was  contended by  Dr.  Chitale  that  although  the building in which the said premises are situated belonged to the Bombay  Port Trust which is admittedly a local authority as contemplated  in Section  4 of  the Bombay  Rent Act, the said premises  were excluded from the scope of the exemption provided by  sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act as  the case fell within the scope of sub-section (4)(a) of Section  4 of  the Bombay  Rent Act.  It was urged by him that the  said building  was erected  on land belonging to a local authority, namely, the Bombay Port Trust and hence the said premises  must be considered to be outside the scope of the exemption  provided by  subsection (1)  of Section 4 and covered by  the provisions  of the  Bombay Rent Act although the building might belong to the Bombay Port Trust.      We may  at this stage notice the legislative history in connection  with   sub-section  (4)(a)  of  Section  4.  The exemption granted  under Section 4(1) of the Bombay Rent Act came up  for consideration  before the  Supreme Court in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

case of  Bhatia Co-operative  Housing Society  Ltd. v. D. C. Patel, [1953] 4 S.C.R. 185. The facts in that case were that the building  site was  auctioned to  a person  by the  City Improvement Trust of Bombay with a condition that the bidder was to put up a building thereon of a certain description at a cost  of not  less than Rs.50,000 and after the completion of the building, the site and the building were to be leased to the  bidder for  a period  of 99  years at a fixed yearly rent.  It  was  held  that  the  building  belonged  to  the Improvement Trust  and not  to the  bidder and a suit by the lessee of  the Improvement  Trust against his sub-lessee was not governed by the Bombay Rent Act as the premises belonged to a  local authority  within the meaning of Section 4(1) of that Act.  In analysing  Section 4(1) of that Act, the Court pointed out  that the  sub-section has  three parts, namely, (1) This  Act shall  not apply  to premises belonging to the Government or  a local  authority, (2)  this Act  shall  not apply as against the Government to any tenancy or other like relationship created by grant from the Government in respect of  premises   taken  on   lease  or  requisitioned  by  the Government and  (3) this  Act  shall  apply  in  respect  of premises let out to the Government or a local authority. The Court  observed   that  the   conclusion   was,   therefore, irresistible that  the Legislature did not by the first part intend to exempt the relationship of the landlord and tenant but  intended   to  confer  on  the  premises  belonging  to Government an  immunity from  the operation  of the Act. The contention of  the  counsel  for  the  sub-lessee  that  the immunity given  by the  first part  should  be  held  to  be available only  to the  Government or  a local  authority to which the premises belonged was 913 rejected. It  was held  that if  the benefit of the immunity was given  only to  the Government  or a local authority and not to  its lessee  and the  Act applied  to the premises as against the  lessee, it must follow that under Section 15 of that Act,  it would  not be  lawful for the lessee to sublet the premises  or any  part of  it and  that if such were the consequences, nobody  would take  a building  lease from the Government or  a local  authority and  the immunity given to the Government or a local authority would, for all practical purposes, and  in so  far as  at any  rate as  the  building leases are  concerned, be  wholly illusory and worthless and the underlying  purpose for  bestowing such immunity will be rendered wholly  ineffective. As  a result of this decision, the sub-lessees  in a  building put  up by a lessee from the Government or  a local  authority under a building lease did not get  any protection from being evicted at the sweet-will of the  lessee and were denied the benefit of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. In order to obviate this hardship of sub-lessees,  sub-section   (4)(a),  set  out  earlier,  was introduced into  the provisions  of the Bombay Rent Act. The question, however,  is whether  the protection  of that sub- section is  available to the sub-lessee in a building leased by the  lessee from  the Government  or a local authority or put up  by a  lessee of the land belonging to the Government or a  local authority  but not  under any  building lease or pursuant to any obligation imposed on the lessee to put up a building. We  may make  it clear  in this connection that in the present  case, the  factual position  emerging from  the record appears  to be  that the entire building in which the said premises,  namely, Gala  No. 4  is situated belonged to the Bombay  Port Trust.  That is  clear from the contents of clause (ii)  of Paragraph  (2) of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Appellants as well as the other material on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

record. It  has nowhere  been contended  at any stage by the Appellants that  the building in which the said premises are situated was  put up  by Respondent  No.  1  Firm.  We  are, therefore, not  concerned with  the position of a sub-lessee in a  building put up by a lessee of the land taken from the Government or  a local  authority without  being  under  any obligation to do so.      It was urged before us by Dr. Chitale that, if the sub- lessee in  a building put up by a lessee on land leased from the Government  or a  local authority under a building lease is entitled  to the  protection of the Bombay Rent Act under the provision of Section 4(4)(a) thereof, there is no reason why such  protection should be denied to a sub-lessee in any building belonging  to the  Government or  a local authority and taken  on lease  by a  private party  regardless of  the question as  to who has put up the building. That may or may not be  so but  what we  have  to  examine  is  whether  the intention to confer such protection can be 914 imputed to  the legislature on the language of the said sub- section read  in the  context of  the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 4  makes it  clear that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act  are not  applicable to  premises belonging  to the Government or  a local  authority. Sub-section  (4)(a)  only takes out  from the  scope of  the  exemption  conferred  by Section 4(1)  "a building  erected on  any land  held by any person from  the Government  or a  local authority  under an agreement, lease,  licence or  other grant,  although having regard to  the provisions  of such agreement, lease, licence or other  grant, although having regard to the provisions of such agreement,  lease, licence  or grant  the  building  so erected may  belong or  continue to belong to the Government or the  local authority,  as  the  case  may  be".  If  this provision were to be construed as including any building put up or erected on land held by any person from the Government or  a  local  authority,  the  result  would  be  that  such protection would be available even against the Government or a local  authority and  the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4  may be  rendered  largely  nugatory.  It  is  not disputed by  Dr. Chitale  that the provisions of sub-section 4(a) were never intended to take away the immunity conferred upon the  premises belonging  to the  Government or  a local authority and  if the  provisions of Section 4(4)(a) were to be construed  as urged by Dr. Chitale this immunity would be rendered practically  nugatory. In  fact, a plain reading of the provisions  of sub-section (4)(a) in the context clearly shows that  there is  no intention  therein to  take  out  a building put  up by the Government or a local authority from the scope  of the  exemption conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4.  In fact,  the language of sub-section (4)(a) and sub-section (1)  of Section  4 of  the Bombay  Rent Act read together suggests  that it was only in respect of a building put up  by  the  lessee  on  the  Government  land  or  land belonging to  a local  authority under  a building agreement that  the  sub-lessees  were  taken  out  of  the  exemption contained in  sub-section (1)  of Section  4 and allowed the benefit of  the provisions  of the  Bombay Rent  Act. It  is significant that  the exemption  granted under  the  earlier part of  sub-section (1)  of Section  4 is in respect of the premises and not in respect of the relationship. In order to confer the  protection of  the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act  to  the  sub-lessees  occupying  the  premises  in  any building erected  on Government land or on land belonging to a local  authority irrespective  of the question who has put

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

up the  building as  against the  lessees of  the  land  but without affecting  the immunity  conferred to the Government or local  authorities as  contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section  4  of  the  Bombay  Rent  Act,  we  would  have  to practically rewrite  the provisions  of Section  4 and it is not open  to us  to do  that. We  are, therefore,  unable to accept the  argument of  Dr. Chitale  and we are of the view that the 915 learned Judge  of the  High Court  of Bombay  was  right  in coming to  the conclusion that the premises in question were not entitled  to the benefit of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.      Before parting with the matter we may take note of some of the other decisions cited before us.      In Kanji  Manji v.  The Trustees of the Port of Bombay, [1962] Suppl.  3 S.C.R. 461 this Court took the view that if the Government  or a local authority wants to evict a person from land  belonging to the Government or a local authority, the provisions  of the  Bombay Rent  Act do  not come in the way. For  the same  reason, the  suit for ejectment does not have to be filed in the Court of Small Causes as required by the Rent  Control Act  but in  the City  Civil Court. If the original lessees  took on  lease not  only the land but also the building,  it is  not open  to their  assignees to claim that the  ownership of  the Government  extended only to the land and  not to  the buildings.  This  decision  is  of  no assistance to the case before us.      In Maneklal  and Sons v. Trustees of Port of Bombay and Others, [1984]  4 S.C.C. 733 the facts, very briefly stated, were that  Respondent No.  1 being the Trustees for the Port of Bombay  were the  owners of  a plot  of land  situated in Bombay. In 1945, the trustees granted lease of the said plot of land  to one Mustafa Husein for the purpose of erecting a godown for carrying on commercial activities. The godown was erected by  Mustafa Husein  in 1946 and in 1958 he granted a lease of  the said  godown to  the petitioners in that case. The Trustees  of the  Port of  Bombay filed  a suit  against Mustafa Husein  for eviction.  The lease  granted to Mustafa Husein stood  terminated. The  ground of  eviction  was  the termination of  Tenancy.  The  Trustees  obtained  a  decree against the heirs of Mustafa Husein. A warrant of possession in execution of decree was sought to be executed against the petitioners. The petitioners obstructed the execution of the decree. Thereupon,  the Trustees  took out a Chamber Summons in the  High Court of Bombay for removal of obstruction. The petitioners contended  that they  were the lessees under the said Mustafa  Husein and  were entitled to the protection of the Bombay  Rent Act.  This Court  pointed out that the word "premises" in  sub-section (1)  could mean  the land  or the buildings or both. Sub-section (4)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act dealt only with the buildings and did not deal with the land because it  used the  word  "buildings"  and  not  the  more general word "premises". The import of sub-section (4)(a) of Section 4  was thus  limited to buildings and did not extend to land. The sub-section, however, was drafted 916 somewhat inartistically  and the  obscurity of  the language resulted in  some difficulty. After considering the decision of the  Bombay High  Court in  Ram Bhagwandas  v.  Municipal Corporation of  the City  of Bombay,  AIR 1956 Bom. 364 this Court pointed  out that  as observed by Chagla, C.J., in the case of  Ram Bhagwandas,  (supra)  by  enacting  sub-section (4)(a) of  Section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act, the Legislature was seeking  to protect  by  that  sub-section  tenants  who

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

occupied buildings  put up  upon land  belonging to  a local authority if the buildings occupied by them were constructed under an  agreement under  which the  lessee  was  under  an obligation to  construct buildings.  The protection  of sub- section (4)(a)  was to  buildings and  not to  lands and the phrase "under  an agreement,  lease or other grant" modified not only  the  expression  "held  by  any  person  from  the Government or  a local  authority" but  also "erected on any land". This  Court pointed  out that this was the view taken by this  Court in  Kanji Manji  Case, cited  earlier. On the basis of  this conclusion,  this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition  filed by  the petitioner.  This decision far from supporting  the submission  of Dr.  Chitale,  militates against it.      In the  result, we  find that  there is no merit in the Appeal and it must fail. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with  no   order  as   to  costs.   However,   taking   into consideration of  the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that  the Appellants  shall not  be evicted  from the premises in question until December 31, 1988.      We can  only observe  that  if  the  intention  of  the Legislature is  that the  protection should  be given to the sub-lessee against  the lessee  in a building taken on lease by the  lessee from  the Government or a local authority, it is  for   the  Legislature  concerned  to  make  appropriate amendments in  the Bombay Rent Act and it is not open for us to re-write  the provisions of sub-section (4)(a) of Section 4 of the Bombay Rent Act on the ground of any such intention as suggested by Dr. Chitale. S.L.                                  Appeal dismissed. 917