1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, at the stage of admission itself, by consent of Mr. Dani, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Sanglikar, learned counsel for the Respondent.

2. A very short question raised for consideration in this Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is,

'Whether the premises belonging to the 'Port Trust of India', being a local authority, which has been excluded from the purview of the protection granted to the tenants under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 and it's successor, the Maharashtra Rent Act, 1999, stand covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suhas H. Pophale Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and its Estate Officer, (2014) 4 SCC 657 ? '

3. In other words,

'Whether the said judgment can be made applicable to this premises, so as to protect the possession of the respondent-tenant, on the count of Respondent being in possession of the said premises since prior to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, (for short, “the Public Premises Act”), came into effect from 1971 ?'

4. The facts of the Writ Petition, therefore, which lie in a narrow compass, are to the effect that, the Petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing Old R.R. No.647, admeasuring 428.66 sq. meters, with building standing thereon, situated at Apollo Reclamation, Mumbai. From 1st May, 1898 to 30th April, 1997, the petitioner has demised the said premises to Ardeshir B. Patel and another, for a term of 99 years. Sometime in the year 1956, by virtue of diverse assignments, the said premises came to be vested in Chandrakant Mulraj Khatau and Lalitkumar Mulraj Khatau. On 22nd March, 1960, by the Resolution bearing No.272, the predecessor of the Petitioner permitted Chandrakant, Lalitkumar and others to assign lease of the said premises to the Respondent. Since then, the Respondent is in possession of the said premises.

5. On 12th October 2001, the Petitioner has, by its Advocate's notice, terminated the tenancy of the Respondent in respect of the said premises and called upon the Respondent to hand over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the Petitioner, along with arrears of compensation. Respondent failed to comply with the requisition in the said notice. Hence, the Petitioner filed an application before the Estate Officer on 28th February 2003 for necessary orders to be passed under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises Act. On 25th September 2003, the Respondent filed reply/written statement to the said application before the Estate Officer. After holding due enquiry, by the order dated 10th October 2007, the Estate Officer allowed the application and directed the Respondent to hand over possession of the said premises and also to pay the arrears of compensation to the Petitioner. Against the said order, the Respondent filed statutory appeal, under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act, before the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai. It was allowed by the Judgment and Order dated 12th September 2014, setting aside the order passed by the Estate Officer. Being aggrieved thereby, this Writ Petition is preferred.

6. While challenging the impugned Judgment and Order of the Appellate Court, the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that, the Appellate Court has committed an apparent error in relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhash H. Pophale Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra), as, according to him, the said Judgment is wholly inapplicable to the premises in question. It is submitted that, the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and it's successor Maharashtra Rent Control Act, cannot have application to the subject premises, since, even prior to coming into force of the Public Premises Act, the present premises are belonging to the local authority, like Bombay Port Trust, and hence, these premises were exempted from the operation of t