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

3. The appellants are the sub-tenants of respondent 1 Firm in respect of gala No. 4 or bay No. 4 in godown situated at the Grain Market at Dana Bunder in Bombay. Respondent 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 from time to time for a period of one year each. The last such agreement was executed on November 7, 1970 and was to expire on October 19, 1971, that is, at the end of Samvat year 2827. Respondent 1 Firm served a notice though their advocate on the appellants on January 13, 1972 to hand over the possession of the said premises, namely, the said gala (referred to hereinafter as "the said premises") inter alia on the ground that the period of the lease had expired. In their reply dated January 14, 1972, the appellants contended that they were lawful sub-tenants of respondent 1 Firm in respect of the said premises and were entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rent Act. Respondent 1 Firm in their reply denied that the appellants were entitled to protection under the said Act. Respondent 1 terminated the tenancy of the appellants by their notice dated February 3, 1972. In the correspondence ensued thereafter between the parties, they repeated their respective stands. Respondent 1 filed a suit in the Bombay 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 to protection under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The Bombay city civil court decreed the suit of respondent 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 recording findings on two questions, namely, (1) as to who were lessors of the defendants whose monthly tenancy commenced in the year 1957 and (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 Meghji 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 tenancy dated February 3, 1972 was 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 judgment to a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court but the same was dismissed by a short order. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court

Reasoning: 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.