Case: Nagji Vallabhji &amp; Company Vs. Meghji Vijpar &amp; Companymeghji Vijpar (Deceased)Through His

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 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 practically rewritten 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 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. 10. Before parting with the matter we may take note of some of the other decisions cited before us. 11. In Kanji Manji v. Trustees of the Port of Bombay [1962 Supp 3 SCR 461 : AIR 1963 SC 468 ] 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. 12. In Maneklal and Sons v. Trustees of Port of Bombay [(1987) 4 SCC 733] the facts, very briefly stated, were that respondent 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 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 [AIR 1956 Bom 364 ] 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 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 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 [1962 Supp 3 SCR 461 : AIR 1963 SC 468 ] 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. 13. In the result, we find that there is no merit in the appeal and it must fail.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. 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 provisions 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 theare, therefore, unable to accept the argument of Dr Chitale and we are of the view that the 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 Rentconsidering 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 [AIR 1956 Bom 364 ] by enacting sub-section(4)(a) of Section 4 of the BombayRent Act the legislature was seeking to protect by that sub-section tenants who 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 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 [1962 Supp 3 SCR 461 : AIR 1963 SC 468 ] 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 againstIn the result, we find that there is no merit in the appeal and it must fail.