ition No 5019 of 1982
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India MS Ganesh for the Petitioner
VK Kanth NS Das Behal and Ms Sushma Relan for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in a representative capacity on behalf of the stenographers Grade I who are attached with officers in the pay scale of Rs2500 2750 Level I seeks parity with the pay scale of the stenographers attached to the Joint Secretaries and officers above that rank
It is stated that the petitioners are in the pay scale of Rs550 900
The petitioners claim that they should be placed in the pay scale of Rs650 1040 with effect from 1st of January 1973
It must however be mentioned that this petition was filed on or about 7th of May 1982 and submissions on this petition were made in the end of November 1986
Therefore the position pertaining to the controversy in this case is prior to the report or the implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission
In short the petitioners are personal assistants and stenographers attached to the heads of the departments in the Customs and Central Excise Departments of the Ministry of Finance
They assert that they have been and are discriminated vis a vis personal assistants and stenographers attached to the Joint Secretaries and officers above them in the Ministry
In brief it is the case of the petitioners that between 28th of January 1955 to 8th of November 1957 the Ministry of Finance prescribed certain educational qualifications and technical proficiency qualifications for both Stenographers and Steno typists
On or about 26th of April 1968 the Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise and Customs made provisions for filling the posts of Stenographers by direct recruitment and prescribed qualifications etc
for the same
In July 1969 the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs classified the posts of Stenographers sanctioned at different levels into four grades viz Grade III II I and Selection Grade
Posts attached to Secrataries and Additional Secretaries were classi 1002 fied as Selection Grade originally and were given pay of Rs350 500900 with effect from 1st of August 1969 Stenographers Grade II Rs210 530 placed with Joint Secretaries and officers of equivalent rank were upgraded to Grade I in the pay scale of Rs350400 770Grade II stenographers were given Rs210 530 Grade III stenographers were given Rs130 280 and Grade III in petitioners  offices were given Rs130 300
It is the case of the petitioners that the counterparts of the petitioners Grade II Stenographers were in the pay scale of Rs210 530 and petitioners in Rs210 425
Criteria of pay scalesstatusrank of officers for the scale of pay of stenographers were made out
In 1970 Ministry of Home Affairs set out the category of officers viz Joint Secretaries to the Government of India and officers of equivalent rank are entitled to the sanction of scale of category of stenographers Grade I SrPA in the pay scale of Rs350 770
Criteria of statusrank of an officer was again established for the pay scale of stenographers
Ministry of Home Affairs on or about 29th of June 1972 pursuant to the decision taken on that date reached in the NCJCM relates to creation of posts of Stenographers Grade I and Grade II in subordinate offices and other offices of the Government of India and also identifiedset outclarified that the posts of Stenographers attached to officers whose status is higher than that of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India shall be in the scale of Rs210 425
Criteria of status of an officer for scale of pay of Stenographers was again established
Thereafter there was the Third Pay Commission s report which was accepted and recommendations were given effect to
As a result of the various Government notifications thereafter and Rules framed it is the case of the petitioners that their counterparts that is to say Stenographers Grade I attachedsanctioned to the Joint Secretaries and equivalent officers were given the pay scale of Rs650710 1040 whereas the petitioners whose posts wereare sanctioned and attached with the officers of the same Government Ministry of Finance and the Department of Revenue and the same administration and Grade Level I Rs2500 2750 Joint Secretaries and Level II Rs2250 2500 Directors who are also Heads of Departments and are at par in senioritypromotion with the counterparts officers in the Department of Revenue were given only Rs425 700 whereas the Stenographers Grade ISenior Grade the petitioners discharged the same functions and indeed have sometimes more onerous duties and responsibilities than their counterparts attached with Joint Secretaries and Level II Directors according to the petitioners
From the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in reply to the opposition by the respondents it appears that the method of recruitment in respect of Grade I stenographers in the Department are as follows 1003 i Petitioners  counterparts in the so called Secretariat  participating attached offices CSSS
_______________________________________________________ Grade of Classi Designationlevel Date of Stenographers fication
statusrankgrades sanction and scale of and pay scales of or up pay
officers for whom gradation
sanctionedattached
_______________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 _______________________________________________________ Grade B Central i Joint Secretaries Grade I Civil  Equivalent
Rs650 710 Service Rs2500 2750 111973 1040
Group B  Gazettedii Directors  Equivalent
Rs2250 2500 12111975 iii Directors  Equivalent
Rs2000 2250 2311984 _______________________________________________________ ii Petitioners  Officers ie so called non participating attached and subordinate offices Directorates  Collectorates of Customs  Central Excise _______________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 _______________________________________________________ Grade I Central i Heads of the Departments Rs550 900 Civil Directors Service Collectors of Group B  Customs  Central non Excise Level I gazetted
Equivalent to Joint Secretaries Rs2500 2750
4778 ii Directors Collectors of Customs  Central Excise Level II Equivalent to Directors IRS IC  CE Service 1004 Rs2250 2500 471978 iii Directors   Generals Principal Collectors ie Level I Col lectors  Rs250 SP Equivalent to pay scale of Addl
Secretary Rs3000 ie Rs2500 2750  SP of Rs250  All Heads of the Depart ments
x x x x x x x iii Comparative Position _______________________________________________________ Officers  pay scales Pay scales of Petitioners in the two offices Stenographers pay scales with Petitioners  their Gr
I in Secttthese officers
counterparts  Participating Offices Petitioners counterparts sanctioned with these officers
1 2 3 _______________________________________________________ Rs2500 2750 Rs650710 1040 Rs425 700 wef111973 wef1173 Rs550 900 wef4778 Rs2250 2500 Rs650710 1040 Rs425 700 wef121175
wef1173 Rs550 900 wef4778
Rs2000 2250 Rs6507101040 Rs425 700 wef2311984
wef111973 Rs2500 2750 Rs650775 1200 Rs550 900 Spl Pay of Rs250 wef1173 ieRs3000 _______________________________________________________ 1005 In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners in this application by one Ved Bhardwaj General Secretary of the Federation it is stated that the correct position of recruitment and position vis a vis the petitioners counterparts in the so called secretariat and participating attached offices are as follows i The petitioners and their Secretariat counterparts are both members of the same Central Civil Service ii They are both Stenographers Grade I belonging to Group B  of the Service except that the Secretariat Stenographers are gazetted whereas the petitioners are not
This exception is a purely fortuitous circumstances iii The petitioners and their counterparts are both sanctioned assigned to and attached with officers who are in the pay scales of Rs2500 2750 Rs2250 2500 and Rs2000 2250 iv Majority of the petitioners  posts are sanctioned attached with Heads of the Department
 The petitioners assert that the above facts reinforce the petitioners  submissions that as between them and their Secretariat counterparts all things are equal ie all relevant considerations governing both are the same and they hold identical posts
According to the petitioners they discharge the same functions and indeed some times more onerous duties and responsibilities than their counterparts whether in the Ministry of Finance or other Ministeries in the Central Secretariat
In the very nature of their service and its concomitant duties and obligations which concern the administration and execution of matters falling under the  the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act 1973 and other Acts
The petitioners have various duties to perform which according to them are as follows a long and arduous hours of work generally extending late in the evening beyond normal office hours and sometimes throughout the night in cases of emergency that have become all too frequent owing to increased punitive and preventive detention cases arising under these Acts resulting in proceedings before all levels of Courts including this Honourable 1006 Court and a spate of Parliament Questions affecting the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue and the petitioners  Department in particular in all its administrative aspects and ramifications
The petitioners have no option but to discharge these duties when called upon to do so and their willingness to forego overtime in cases where the Stenographers are entitled is not accepted by the officers as affording an excuse to relieve the petitioners of such duties and hours of work
b an excessively recurring volume of dictation and typing day to day to cope with the normal and emergent exigencies including written correspondence recording and transcribing of notes on inspection tours and preparation of investigation and tour reports for the superior officers of notes and memoranda for counsel in court proceedings of briefs for official statements and conferences and replies to Parliament Questions and the Public Accounts Committee Chambers of Commerce Customs and Central Excise Advisory Councils and other bodies on fiscal policies like CommissionsCommittees detailed reports constituting background material with reference to cases or matters falling within the purview of any one or more of the aforesaid Acts and so on
c observing the very stringent requirements of secrecy necessarily involved in such cases or matters d the consequent constant exposure to security risks and to personal safety with accompanying mental tension and strain
 The petitioners assert that basic qualifications method manner and source of recruitment and grades of promotions are the same as their counterparts attached to the Joint SecretariesSecretaries and other officers in the Secretariat
According to the petitioner even on the criteria adopted by the Third Pay Commission they seek herein to demonstrate that there was no basis for any differentiation between the petitioners and their counterparts
While the petitioners get a grade of Rs550 900 their counterparts are in the pay scale of Rs650 1040
The petitioners assert that this is discrimination
This differenti 1007 ation without any rational basis is discrimination violative of Article 14 and Article 161 of the Constitution of India
They clamour for equal pay for equal work
They also allege that their has been discrimination in the adoption of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission as detailed in their petition
This petition has been disposed of on the basis of the position prevailing prior to the report of the Fourth Pay Commission and its acceptance or implementation
The respondents on the other hand deny that their is any discrimination differentiation without basis
The respondents by their affidavit filed by one Shri SP Kundu Under Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Finance assert that the Secretariat of the MinistriesDepartments of the Government of India together constitute Headquarters Organisation
In the administrative hierarchy of the Central Government the Secretariat occupy according to respondents a key position and the main role of the Secretariat is to help the Government in the tasks of formulation of policies to prepare programmes in order to translate these policies into co ordinated action and to ensure the effective execution of Government policies through periodical review
The Secretariat also helps Ministers to discharge their accountability to Parliament including the various Parliamentary Committees
According to the respondents detailed execution of Government s policies specially in the field is left to the agencies outside the Secretariat which are called attached or subordinate offices of the Ministries but they are always subject to supervision by the Secretariat
The respondents state that to man the various stenographic posts in the Headquarters the Government constituted the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service CSSS which also cater to the needs of such posts in several attached offices which are known as participating offices
But none of the attached offices assert the respondents of the Department of Revenue are participating offices
Therefore keeping in view the importance and the nature and the type of the work performed in the MinistriesDepartments of the Government of India vis a vis those in the attached and subordinate offices and consequently the nature of stenographic assistance required according to the respondents the Third Pay Commission recommended different scales of pay for Stenographers in CSSS and those in the non participating attached and subordinate offices
The respondents in this connection have drawn our attention to the Report of the Third Pay Commission in recommending different and lower scales of pay for the stenographers of the non participating attached and subordinate offices in comparison with those in the Central Secretariat as follows 1008 As a general statement it is correct to say that the basic nature of a stenographer s work remains by and large the same whether he is working with an officer in the secretariat or with an officer in the subordinate office
We feel however that the position needs to be examined a little more critically because the size of a stenographer s job is very much dependent upon the nature of the work entrusted to that officer
It would not be correct therefore to go merely by status in these matters and disregard the functional requirements
By the very nature of Secretariat working the volume of dictation and typing work can be expected to be heavier than in a subordinate office
Also the requirement of secrecy even in the civil offices of the Secretariat can be very stringent
Considering the differences in the hierarchical structure and in the type of work transacted in the Secretariat and in the subordinate offices we are not in favour of adopting a uniform pattern
Once the functional requirements are seen to be different for the Secretariat and the subordinate office it will not be worth while to aim for absolute parity in the pay scale of Stenographers working on the two sides
 What was emphasised before us was that the difference in the functional requirements of the work done was one of the points
The respondents say that in devising any scales of various postscategories inter alia the degree of skill experience involved training required responsibility taken strain fatigue risk and confidentiality undertaken mental and physical requirements are factors to be borne in mind
It has been emphasised by the respondents that though the duties and works are identical between the petitioners and their counterparts attached to the Secretaries in the Secretariat their functions are not identical with regard to their duties and responsibilities
The respondents state that the stenographers attached with the officers in the Secretariat formed a distinguishable class as they have to assist the officers in the discharge of their duties and high responsibilities which according to the respondents are of a much higher nature than in the attached and subordinate offices
According to the respondents the Joint Secretaries and Directors in the Central Secretariat performed functions and duties of higher responsibilities than those performed by the Heads of Departments although they are borne on identical scales of pay
It is in this background of the facts that the claims of the petitioner have to be judged
1009 Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right
But equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work done it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility
Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference
One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service
So long as such value judgment is made bona fide reasonably on an intelligible criteria which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation such differentiation will not amount to discrimination
It is important to emphasise that equal pay for equal work is a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution
But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be a negation of that right
We may briefly note the principles evolved by this Court in this respect in the backdrop of varied set of facts
Differentiation in implementing the award or the recommendations of Pay Commission without rational basis may amount to discrimination
In Purshottam Lal  Others
vs Union of India  Anr it was held that implementation of the revised pay scale in a particular category of servants from a date later than that recommended by the Pay Commission and thus non implementation of its report only in respect of those persons amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution the Constitution Bench held
In Laljee Dubey and Others vs Union of India and Others this principle was reiterated again
This Court in Randhir Singh vs Union of India  Ors  had to deal with the case of a driver constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration
The scale of pay in the Delhi Police Force was for non matriculate drivers Rs210 70 and for matriculate drivers Rs225 308
The scale of pay of a driver in the Railway Protection Force was Rs260 400
The scale of pay of drivers in the non secretariat offices in Delhi was Rs260 6 326 EB 8 350 while that of Secretariat offices in Delhi was Rs260 6 290 EB 6 326 8 366 EB 8 8 8 390 10 400
The scale of pay of drivers in the office of the Language Commission was Rs260 300 while the drivers of heavy vehicles in the Fire Brigade and the Department of Light House was Rs330 480
The petitioner and other driver constables made a representation to the authorities that their case was omitted to be considered separately by the Third Pay Commission and that their pay scales should be the same as the drivers of heavy vehicles in other departments
As their claims for better scales of pay did not meet with success the said application was filed by the petitioner for the issue of 1010 a write under Art32 of the Constitution
It was allowed by the Court
Chinnappa Reddy J speaking for a Bench of three learned judges of this Court reiterated the following principles a Equal pay for equal work  is not a mere demagogic slogan but a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies by the enforcement of constitutional rights under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
bThe stand of the Government of India that the circumstance that persons belonging to different departments of the Government is itself a sufficient circumstance to justify different scales of pay irrespective of the identity of their powers duties and responsibilities is unacceptable and untenable
c While equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the Courts where all things are equal ie where all relevant considerations are the same persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments
d The principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine when applied to Government servants performing similar functions and having identical powers duties and responsibilities
e As matter of interpretation the Directive Principles eg Article 39d of the Constitution have to be and have been read into the Fundamental Rights eg Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
So read the principle of equal pay for equal work though not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right is a constitutional goal
Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39d the principle of equal pay for equal work  is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer
 1011 The Court further expressed the view that on the aforesaid interpretation in the facts of that case it was proper to direct the Central Government to fix pay scales on par for persons doing identical work under the same employer
It is however to be borne in mind what has been emphasised by the respondents in the instant case on this aspect
That case related to the drivers who had been doing physical work in the case of stenographers and personal assistants there is an element of faith reliability and responsibility and the functional responsibilities and the requirements of persons doing same amount of physical work may be different in some cases depending upon the officers with whom the stenographers and personal assistants are attached
On behalf of the petitioners it is emphasised that Heads of Departments who are in the senior Administrative Grade Level I Rs2500 2750 which is equivalent to the pay scale of the Joint Secretaries in the Ministries and their nature of work is virtually the same
They have also to deal with sensitive matters
The basic principles on which differentiation would not amount to discrimination violative of either Article 14 of Article 161 of the Constitution are well settled
Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at the arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment
It is attracted where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis
The principle underlying the guarantee is that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed
Equal laws must be applied equally and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject matter of either administrative action or of legislation their position is substantially the same
Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation or administrative mandate
The classification must however be founded on an intelligible basis which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus with the object to be achieved by the differentiation made in the statute or order in question
In other words there ought to be causal connection between the basis of classification and the object of the classification
See in this connection the observations of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of DS Nakara  Others vs Union of India  See also PK Ramachandra Iyer  Others vs Union of India  others 1984 2 SCR 200 where this Court at page 226 of the Report reiterated that the principle of equal pay for equal work  is deducible from those Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39d of the Constitution and might be applied properly in the cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification 1012 though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer
In Delhi Veterinary Association vs Union of India  Others   which was dealing with Veterinary Assistant Surgeons working in the Delhi Administration
It was observed dismissing the writ petition that the question of the fixation of pay scale for Veterinary Assistant Surgeons should be left to be decided by the Government on the basis of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission
The question of discrimination cannot be decided in isolation
This Court reiterated that in addition to the principle of equal pay for equal work  the pay structure of the employees of the Government should reflect many other social values
This Court also emphasised the need for evolution and implementation of a scientific national policy of incomes wages and prices
In P Savita vs Union of India  Ors 1985 Suppl
1 SCR101 this Court was dealing with Senior Draughtsmen doing the same work and discharging the similar functions and duties
They were classified into two groups on the basis of seniority with two different pay scales
The question was whether it was discriminatory
It was held that it was
This Court reiterated that a group of draughtsmen entitled to higher scale of pay was not selected by any process nor is it based on any merit cum seniority basis but is based only on seniority cum fitness
Moreover it was found that the senior draughtsmen divided into two groups were in the same department doing identical and same work
It was not a case of different grades created on the ground of higher qualification either academic or otherwise or an entitlement by any other criteria
Thus the classification between the two groups of senior draughtsmen was without any basis
In view of the total absence of any plea in that case on the side of the respondents that the Senior Draughtsmen who were placed in the advantageous group do not perform work and duties more onerous or different from the work performed by the appellants groups in that case it was held that this grouping violated Article 14 of the Constitution
It reiterated that the principle of equal pay for equal work  would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Article 14 if quality is made critarion for differentiation
See also Surinder Singh and Anr
vs Engineer in Chief CPWD and Others This Court in a different context had to decide this question in Frank Anthony Public School Employees  Association vs Union of India and Others 19864 SCC 707
It was held that there cannot be discrimination in pay and other conditions of service of school teachers merely on the basis of aided and unaided minority schools
As is evident the facts of the instant case are entirely different
1013 Here the differentiation is sought to be justified on the similarity of the functional work but on the dissimilarity of the responsibility confidentiality and the relationship with public etc
In Dhirendra Chamoli and another vs State of UP  this Court was concerned with the casual workers on daily wage basis engaged by the Government in different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country performing the same duties as performed by the regular Class IV employees against the sanctioned strength
The claim was allowed with certain directions on the basis of the facts found
See in this connection Union of India  Anr
vs RG Kashikar  Anr AIR 1986 SC 431
In Writ Petition Civil Nos
13097 13176 of 1984 MP Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police CBI and Others vs Union of India  Others Judgments Today  this Court on the facts of that case found that among the employees of the Central Bureau of Investigation there are two classes of officials deputationists and non deputationists amongst Sub Inspectors Inspectors and Deputy Superintendent of Police
There has been discrimination among two groups with regard to payment of special pay
Special pay related to arduous nature of duties to be performed
Whether they belong to the category of deputationists or non deputationists payment of different rates of Special pay it was held in the facts of the case did not pass the test of classification
This Court reiterated that it was well settled that in order to pass the test of permissible classification of persons belonging to the same class into groups for purposes of differential treatment two conditions must be fulfilled namely that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons who were grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the law which brings about discrimination between the two groups
In Ms Mackinnon Mackenzie  Co Ltd vs Audrey D Costa  Anr SLP CIVIL No 126587 decided on March 261987 the question was the different treatment between male and female stenographers
But there differentiation was based on the ground of sex
It was struck down
It will clearly be violative of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution
In this case the differentiation has been sought to be justified in view of the nature and the types of the work done that is on intelligible basis
The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work some more sensitive some requiring more tact some less it varies from nature and culture of employment
The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula
If it has a rational nexus with the object to be sought for as 1014 reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in law or in fact
In the light of the averments made and in the facts mentioned before it is not possible to say that the differentiation is based on no rational nexus with the object sought for to be achieved
In that view of the matter this application must fail and it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs
We must however make it clear that this will not in any way prevent or prejudice the Government from reviewing the situation in the light of the report of the Fourth Pay Commission or any other appropriate body if any with such modification as the Government and the authorities concerned considered fit and proper
SL Petition dismissed


Summary:
This appeal raised a short question as to the interpretation of sub section 4a 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  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 4a 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 4a only takes out from the scope of the exemption conferred by section 41 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 4a 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 44a 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 4a 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 4a 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 H915A The decision of this Court in Kanji Manji vs The Trustees of the Port of Bombay 1962 Suppl
3 SCR 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 vs Trustees of Port of Bombay and Others 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 4a 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 vs
DC Patel  Kanji Manji vs The Trustees of the Port of Bombay 1962 Suppl
3 SCR 461 Maneklal and Sons vs Trustees of Port of Bombay and Others and Ram Bhagwandas vs Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay  referred to