Holding

Sub‑section (4)(a) of section 4 does not extend the Bombay Rent Act’s protection to sub‑lessees in premises belonging to the Government or a local authority unless the building was erected by the lessee under an agreement, so the exemption of section 4(1) continues to apply.

Summary

The appellants, sub‑tenants of a godown owned by the Bombay Port Trust, were served notice to vacate after their lease expired and the landlord sued for possession. The appellants claimed protection under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, specifically sub‑section (4)(a) of section 4, arguing that it removed the exemption for premises belonging to the Government or a local authority. The Supreme Court examined the language of section 4(1) and 4(4)(a) and held that the latter only removes the exemption for buildings erected by the lessee under an agreement, not for buildings that belong to the Government or a local authority irrespective of who constructed them. Consequently, the premises remained exempt from the Act and the eviction decree was upheld, though the Court stayed the eviction until 31 December 1988. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether sub‑section (4)(a) of section 4 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 extends the Act’s protection to sub‑lessees occupying premises belonging to the Government or a local authority where the building was not erected by the lessee under an agreement.

Legislation cited

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947s. 12, s. 13, s. 15, s. 15A, s. 4(1), s. 4(4)(a)

Subjects

sub‑leaseBombay Rent Actgovernment premises exemptionevictionstatutory interpretationsection 4(4)(a)special leave petition

Judgment

A NAGJI VALLABHJI & COMPANY
v.
MEGHJI VIJPAR & COMPANY
MEGHJI VIJPAR {DECEASED)
TIIROUGH HIS LRS.

B MAY 4, 1988

[R.S. PATHAK, C.J. AND M.H. KANIA, J.]
•
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, ~
1947-sub-section (4)(a) of section 4--Interpretation of-Dispute
C between sub-tenant and tenant regarding eviction of sub-tenant from
premises in occupation of sub-tenant.

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").
D
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 occu-
pation of the said Gala under written agreements executed from time to
E time for one year each. The last such agreement expired on 19th
October, 1971. The respondent No. 1 Firm served a notice on the appel-
lants on 13th January, 1972 to hand over possession of the said gafa 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
F appellants to recover possession of the premises tn 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 oftbe 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
G 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.

H Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
906
NAGJI & CO. v. MEGHJI & CO. 907

HELD: The only submission made by the appellants before the
A
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. l Firm was not entitled to a decree for eviction as no grounds for
eviction under the Act had been made out. [910G I

The question raised was whether the protection of the sub-section B
(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 c
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 D
do so. [9130-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 autho-
rity. Sub-section (4)(8) only takes out from the scope of the exemption E
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". H this provision were to be as including any F
building put up or erected on land held by any person from the Govern-
ment 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 G
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 H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 (l)
B of section 4 ;md 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 (l) of section 4 is in respect of the premises
and not in respect of the relationship. In order to confer the protection

1
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
c up the 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 ( l) 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
D
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
E 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]

F
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. [916EI

The Court observed that if the intention of the legislature was that
G 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
H Dr. Chitale counsel for the ~ppellants. [916FI
909
t- NAGJI & CO. v. MEGHJI & CO. [KANIA, J.]

Bhatia Co-operative Hoilsing Society Ltd. v. D.C. Patel, [1953] 4
A
S.C.R. 185; Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay, [1%2]
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 Born. 364, referred to.

· CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4248 B
of 1986.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.86 of the High Court
of Bombay in LP.A. No.66/86.

l Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Kailash Vasudev and A.J. Dholakia for the
Appellants.
c
S.A. Dave, E. Maqbool and Mrs. M. Karanjawala for the Res-
pondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D

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"). E

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 F
Market at Dana Bonder in Bombay. Respondent No. 1 Firm were the
tenants of the said premises, namely, the said godown in which the said
Gala is situated, 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 G
._.\ from time to time for a period of one year each. The last such agree-
men! 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") H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988] 3 S.C.R. ~

A
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 Appel-
!ants were entitled to protection under the said Act. Respondent No. 1
B terminated the tenancy of the Appellants by their notice dated --4.
February 3, 1972. In the correspondence ensued thereafter between
the parties, they repeated their respective stands. Respondent No. 1
filed a suit in the Boinbay 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
c 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 recordiug find-
ings on two questions, namely, (1) as to who were lessors of the
defendants whose monthly tenancy commenced in the year 1957 and
D (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
E 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 judg-
-
ment to a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court but the same was ;/'
F dismissed by a short order. This Appeal is directed against the judg-
ment 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
G 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 f-.
decree for eyiction 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
H intend to ·proceed 'on the assumption that Respondent No. 1 Firm has
NAGJI & CO. v. MEGHJI & CO. [KANIA, J.J 911

not made out any ground which would entitle him to a decree for
A
eviction under Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. 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 B
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:
c
"4. Exemptions.-

(1) This Act shall not apply to any premises belong-
ing to the Government or a local authority or apply as
against the Government to any tenancy, licence or other D
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, includ-
ing 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 Govern- E
ment 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 F
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, decre.e or order of a court, not include G
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". H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19881 3 S.C.R. ~

It was contended by Dr. Chitale that although the building in
A
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)
--(
B 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 consi-
dered to be outside the scope of the exemption provided by sub-
section (1) of Section 4 and covered by the provisions of the Bombay
Rent Act although the building might belong to the Bombay Port
Trust.
c
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 case of Bhatia Co-operative Housing Society
D 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
E 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, Y.·
F 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
G 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
H Government or a local authority to which the premises belonged was
NAGJI & CO. v. MEGHJI & CO. {KANIA, J.I 913
j
rejected. It was held that if the benefit of the immunity was given only
A
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 autho- B
>-· rity 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

J
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 provi-
c
sions 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 D
authority or put up by a lessee of the land belongip.g to the Govern-
ment or a local authority but not under any building lease or pursuant
tu 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 build-
ing in which the said premises, namely, Gala No. 4 is situated belonged E
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 Appel-
• !ants as well as the other material on 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, therefor~, not concerned with the position of a sub-lessee in a F
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 G
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-Jessee
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 H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988] 3 S.C.R.
-4.
A 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
B 4( 1) "a building erected on any land held by any person from the --(
Government or a local authority uuder an agreement, lease, licence or
other grant, although having regard to the provisions of such agree-
ment, 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 Gov-
c ernment 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
D 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 -1
E 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 Sec-
tion 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 al!thority under a building agreement that the
sub-lessees were taken out of the exemption contained in sub-section
~
F ( 1) of Section 4 and allowed the benefit of the provisions of the I
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
G on land belonging to a local authority irrespective of the question who
has put up the building as against the lessees of the land but without
affecting the immunity conferred to the Government or local authori- ~
ties as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Bombay
Rent Act, we would have to practically rewrite the provisions of Sec-
tion 4 and it is not open to us to do that. We are, therefore, unable to
H accept the argument of Dr. Chitale and we are of the view that the
NAGJI & CO. v. MEGHJI & CO. [KANIA, J.J 915
f
learned Judge of the High Court of Bombay was right in coming to the
A
conclusion that the premises in question were not entitled to the be·
nefit 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 .
~
. B
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 ptovisions of the Bombay Rent

J Act do not come in the way. For the same reason, the .suit for eject·
ment 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 lint also the building, it is not
c
open to their aS5ignees 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.
D
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 Respon·
dent 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 E
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 termmation of Tenancy. The Trustees obtained a
~ decree against the heirs of Mustafa Husein. A warrant of possession in F
execution of decree was sought to be executed against the petitioners.
The petitioners obstructed the execution of the decree. Thereupon,
the Trustees iook 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 G
.~· 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 H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 $.C.R.
·-\
A 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 Born. 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 Legisla-
B --(
ture was seeking to protect by that sub-section tenants who occupied
buildings put up upon land belonging to a local authotity if the build-
ings 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
c 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
r
supporting the submission of Dr. Chitale, militates against it.
D
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 circumst-
ances of the case we direct that the Appellants shall not be evicted
from the premises in question until December 31, 1988.
E ""
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
F
amendments in the Bombay Rent Act and it is not open for us to y.
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.