LexNAGJI VALLABHJI & COMPANY versus MEGHJI VIJPAR & COMPANY MEGHJI VIJPAR (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
NAGJI VALLABHJI & COMPANY
v.
MEGHJI VIJPAR & COMPANY
MEGHJI VIJPAR {DECEASED)
TIIROUGH HIS LRS.
MAY 4, 1988
[R.S. PATHAK, C.J. AND M.H. KANIA, J.]
•
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act,
~
1947-sub-section (4)(a) of section 4--Interpretation of-Dispute
C between sub-tenant and tenant regarding eviction of sub-tenant from
premises in occupation of sub-tenant.
D
This appeal raised a short question as to the .interpretation of
sub-section ( 4)(a) 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 occu-
pation of the said Gala under written agreements executed from time to
E time for one year each. The last such agreement expired on 19th
October, 1971. The respondent No. 1 Firm served a notice on the appel-
lants on 13th January, 1972 to hand over possession of the said gafa 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
F
appellants to recover possession of the premises tn 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 oftbe 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
G
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.
H
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
906
NAGJI & CO. v. MEGHJI & CO.
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. l Firm was not entitled to a decree for eviction as no grounds for
eviction under the Act had been made out. [910G I
The question raised was whether the protection of the sub-section
(4)(a) 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
A
B
c
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
D
do so. [9130-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 autho-
rity. Sub-section (4)(8) only takes out from the scope of the exemption
E
conferred by section 4(1) "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". H this provision were to be as including any
F
building put up or erected on land held by any person from the Govern-
ment 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 secExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.