After pointing out that what has been challenged before them was the constitutional validity of the Bombay Act LVII of 1958 particularly the provisions 3, 4 and 6 of that Act, and referring to the earlier decision that this Court had held that Sections 32 to 32 R of parent Act read with the Amendment Act were designed to bring about an extinguishment or in any event a modification of the landlords rights in the estate within the meaning of article 31A(1)(a) of the Constitution, it was observed that the right which the petitioners got of receiving the purchase price was undoubtedly a right to property guaranteed under article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and was not saved by clause 5 thereof nor are the cases before them protected by article 31A. section K. Das, J. gave the following reasoning for the aforesaid conclusion at page 438 439 : "The petitioners have three kinds of tenants permanent tenant protected tenants, and ordinary tenants.