Summary
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 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^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 9084. 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 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] 4S.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.See the full content of this document
Extract
Nagji Vallabhji & Company VS. Meghji Vijpar & Companymeghji Vijpar (Deceased)through His
PETITIONER: NAGJI VALLABHJI & COMPANY Vs.RESPONDENT: MEGHJI VIJPAR & COMPANYMEGHJI VIJPAR (DECEASED)THROUGH HIS LDATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1988BENCH: 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)997ACT: 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.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 byKANIA, 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 ...
See the full content of this document