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 narro