JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY,J.:— The respondent is a statutory body corporate initially constituted under the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879 (Bombay Act 6 of 1879), for short State Act. Under Section 26 thereof, the Board have power to acquire and hold, moveable and immoveable property and also have power to. lease, to sell or otherwise convey moveable and immoveable property which may have become vested in or acquired by them. The respondent has appointed A. J. Mescarnas, Assistant Estate Manager as their power Of attorney holder to lease out its properties from time to time or terminate the leases and to lay action for ejectment, etc. The respondent owns the building bearing Old R.R. No. 941 known as "Frere Land Estate" in which room No. 2 admeasuring 28.27 sq. meters was leased out to Vasantkumar Raidhakisan Vora, for short Vasantkumar.The appellants are his legal representatives. He was served with a notice under Section 106 read with Section 111(h) of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy in terms of the covenants of lease and was asked to deliver possession of the demised property giving one months time from 22nd January, 1975.

It was served on Vasantkumar on January 28, 1975. The notice of termination thereby became effective from 28th February, 1975. In the meanwhile Major Port Trust Act, 1963 (Act No. 38 of 1963), for short the "Central Act", was made applicable to the Bombay Port Trust by operation of Section 1330(2A) with effect from February 1. 1975. After the expiry of one month, ejectment application was filed under Section 41 of the Bombay Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (Act 15 of 1882) as amended under 1963 Maharashira Amendment Act, against Vasantkumar and another for delivery of possession. After 1976 Amendment Act 19 of 1976 came into force suits were laid against three other tenants. It was pleaded by the respondent that it is a successor in interest of the Board under the State Act and were entitled to eject the tenants and to the possession of the demised portions. The plea of Vasantkumar in his written statement elaborated by the learned counsel, is that the suit is not maintainable. Since the State Act ceased to be operative with effect from February 1, 1975, the quit notice issued under Section 106 read with Section111 (h) of Transfer of Property Act became ineffective and without determining the tenancy afresh, the suit was not validly laid. It was also pleaded that the respondent had promised that on deposit of certain amount which the tenant did, Vasantkumar would be given on lease of a portion in the reconstructed building. Thereby the respondent is estopped by promissory estoppel to have the tenant ejected. It may be mentioned at this juncture that one suit was dismissed on the ground that the tenancy was not duly determined as per law. Other suits were decreed. No appellate forum has been prescribed under Amendment Act of 1963 but a substantive suit on original side provided was available. By Maharashtra Amendment Act 19 of 1976 to the principal such a right to appeal was incorporated. Vasantkumar filed writ petition in the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 and others filed regular appeals to a Bench of two Judges of the Small Cause Court and are stated to be pending.

2.In the writ petition the petitioner challenged the vires of 1963 Amendment Provisions and also 1976 Amendment Provisions to the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. When it came up for hearing before Masodkar, J., he referred to a Division Bench. The Division Bench by its judgment dated January 17/18, 1982 upheld the constitutional validity of those sections and remitted to the learned single Judge to dispose of the writ petition on merits. The learned single Judge considered and negatived two points namely, validity of the notice terminating the tenancy, promissory estoppel and dismissed the writ petition. Vasantkumar had leave of this Court under Art. 136

3. The primary contention of Mr.Turana, learned counsel for the ap