MANEKLAL AND SONS versus TRUSTEES OF PORT OF BOMBAY & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 483 · Decided: 14-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
MANEKLAL AND SONS 
A 
v. 
TRUSTEES OF PORT OF BOMBAY & ORS. 
OCTOBER 14, 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
B 
'r 
~ 
Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 
1947: Section 4(1)(a) and 4(4)(a)-Land belonging to local authority 
taken on lease-Lessee constructing building and letting out the 
same-Sub lessee-Whether entitled to protection. 
c 
I-
In 1945 the first respondent-Trustees of Port ofBombay, granted 
lease of plot owned by them for the purpose of erecting a godown for 
carrying on commercial activities at a monthly rent of Rs. 925. In 1946 
the lessee erected a permanent godown. In 1958, he granted lease of the 
D 
said godown to the petitioners. The first respondent filed a suit against 
the heirs of the original lessee for eviction on the ground of termination 
of tenancy, and obtained a decree. When warrant of possession was 
sought to be executed, the petitioners obstructed the execution of the 
~-
decree. 
E 
The first respondent thereupon took out a Chamber Summons for 
removal of obstruction under Order 21 Rule 97-101 C.P.C. The 
-
petitioners contended that as they were lessees under the original lessee 
they were entitled to protection of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging 
Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947-the Bombay Rent Act-which applied 
'-~ 
to the building erected by a lessee from the local authority. The trial 
F 
court rejected the petitioners' objection and allowed the Chamber 
Summons. 
The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the Single Judge of 
the High Court holding that they were not entitled to the benefit of the 
G 
Bombay Rent Act. The contentions arising out of the Easement Act and 
alleged acquiescence of the first respondent were negatived. The Letters 
-f 
Patent Appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. 
On the question whether the petitioners were entitled to protec-
tion under section 4(l)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. 
H 
483 
A 
ll 
484 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 1 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, 
HELD: Where a building was erected by the lessee not pursuant 
to or not under any agreement with the lessor then the case did not fall 
under section 4(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging Houses 
Rates (Control) Act, 1947. l48CiG] 
Section 4(1) gives immunity to the local authority in respect o>f the 
land which it has let out to the lessee and that immunity cannot be taken 
away merely because the lessor on his own volition and without being In 
obligation under any agreement choses to put up structures on that 
land. Therefore, if the premises belonged to the Government or a local 
C 
authority then the Act would not apply. [48CiH; 487 A, DI 
In the Instant case, the lands belong to the local authority but the 
structures were put on by the lessees of the first respondent not under 
any building lease, and sud1 protection cannot be claimed in respect of 
these premises. In view of the fact that the original lease was only a 
D 
month!~ tenancy and not a building lease, the High Court was right in 
dismissing the objections on behalf of the petitioners. Since the petition-
rrs have been in possession of the premises for some time, the petition-
ers are allowed to continue to remain in the premises upto 15th 
September, 1988. [489F, H] 
E 
Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay, [1962] Suppl. 
F 
3 S.C.R. 461 applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
(Civil) No. 9887 of.1987. 
-
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.1987 of the Bombay 
~ 
High Court in L.P.A. No. 77 of 1987. 
,.___,. 
K.K. Venugopal, A.K. Sen, M.K. Nesari, P.H. Parekh and R.K. 
Dhillon for the petitioners. 
G 
F.S. Nariman, U.J. Maskeja, B.S. Basaniaum, J. Peres, A.K. 
Verma and D.N. Mishra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABY ASA CHI MUKHARJI, J. This petition is for leave to 
H appeal against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the 
+-
MANEKLAL v. TRUSTEES OF PORT OF BOMBAY [MUKHARJI, J.J 
485 
1 
Bombay High Court dismissing Letters Patent Appeal from the order 
of the learned Single Judge. The 1st respondents being the trustees for A 
the Port of Bombay are the owners of plot of land bearing Plot No. 62 
admeasuring 576 sq. yards lying and situate in Pooria Street, Elphin-
stone Estate, Bombay-3. In or about 1945 the trustees of the Port of 
Bombay granted lease of the said plot of land to one Mustafa Husein 
for the purpose of erecting a godown for carrying on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.