Judgment

RAY, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 28 January 1972 of the High Court at Bombay.

2. The High Court in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution quashed an order of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay.

3. A trust known as Padamsi Bhanji Trust of Bombay owned a godown at 8 Mugbhat Lane, Girgaum, Bombay. The tenant of the property before 1952 was Ochhavlal. The property thereafter came into possession of S. V. Sovani. Sovani carried on the business of preparation and sale of scientific apparatus. About 1952 Sovani became Director of Sovani Private Limited Company referred to as the private Company. The private Company went into possession of the godown as also the business which was carried on by Sovani. Rent was paid up to the year 1966 in the name of Ochhavlal. Rent receipts were also in the name of Ochhavlal. In the year 1966 the trust employee who collected rent refused to accept rent. Thereafter rent was sent by money order to the trustees. The trustees did not accept the money orders.

4. The trustees in the year 1970 filed suit for possession. Ochhavlal was the defendant in the suit. The grounds for eviction of Ochhavlal were first that he was a defaulter in the payment of rent from 1966, and secondly, he was guilty of sub-letting. The suit was decreed ex parte in the month of of March, 1971. On 8 April, 1971 the trustees obtained possession.

5. Thereafter an application was made under Order XXI, Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Private Company for relief against dispossession in execution of the decree. The trial Court accepted the contention of the Private Company that they became sub-tenants.

6. Against that Order an application in revision was filed by the trustees. The Small Cause Court set aside the order passed by the trial Court.

7. The Private Company thereupon made an application under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court . The High Court held that the Small Cause Court in revision committed an error in applying Section 15 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The High Court held that the Private Company was a tenant within the meaning of the Bombay Act.

8. This appeal turns entirely on the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Bombay Rent Act referred to as the Act.

Section 15 (1) of the Act is as follows :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, but subject to any contract to the contrary, it shall not be lawful after the coming into operation of this Act for any tenant to sub-let the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein."

The present sub-section (1) was numbered as sub-section (1) by Bombay Ordinance No. III of 1959 published on 21 May, 1959. This was subsequently enacted in Bombay Act No. 49 of 1959. Prior to the renumbering with the exception of the words "but subject to any contract to the contrary" the body of the section was the same.

9. There is a proviso to sub-section (1) which runs thus :

"Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit in any area the transfer of interest in premises held under such lease or class of leases and to such extent as may be specified in the notification".

10. There is also an explanation to sub-section (1). This explanation was added by Maharashtra Act No. 17 of 1968. The explanation is that leases or class of leases shall include and shall be deemed always to have included within their meaning assignments and other transfers of the leases or class of leases, and accordingly notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, provisions in any notification under the proviso which purports to permit assignments and transfers by lessees shall include and shall always be deemed to have included assignments and transfers of the leasehold, made on or after 12 May 1948, and whether made by the original lessees or their assignees or transferees or any subsequently assignees or transferee