( 1 ) THE plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendants for recovering possession of the suit premises which consist of a school building on the ground that defendant No. 3 who is the tenant has unlawfully sublet them to defendant No. 2 Gondal Municipality. Defendant No. 3 is Gondal Taluka Panchayat to which the suit premises were let by the plaintiffs for running the school. Thereafter the Government by its Resolution dated 28th February 1968 Exhibit 61 resolved to transfer primary schools to the Municipalities where the Municipalities were prepared to shoulder the responsibility. Accordingly the primary schools in the town of Gondal were transfer red from Gondal Taluka Panchayat to Gondal Municipality. The plaintiffs therefore contended that Gondal Taluka Panchayat had unlawfully sublet the suit premises to Gondal Municipality and that therefore they were entitled to recover its possession under sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Bombay Rent Act.

( 2 ) IT was contended by Gondal Taluka Panchayat in defence that possession had been transferred by the Government in pursuance of their resolution and that therefore there was no unlawful subletting.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge held that the transfer of leasehold rights of Gondal Taluka Panchayat to Gondal Municipality was effected by operation of law and not by an act inter vivos between the parties. He therefore held that there was no unlawful subletting. In this view of the matter he dismissed the suit.

( 4 ) THE plaintiffs appealed against that decree to the appellate Court. The learned appellate Judge confirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal.

( 5 ) IT is that appellate decree which is challenged by the plaintiffs in this Civil Revision Application.

( 6 ) IN light of sec. 3 and sec. 4 of the Bombay Rent Act the premises in question are governed by the provisions of that Act. Within the meaning of sec. 6 of the Bombay Rent Act since the suit premises were let out to Gondal Taluka panchayat for the purpose of education Part II of the Bombay Rent Act applies to them.

( 7 ) THE question which has been raised for my consideration is whether there has been an unlawful subletting of the suit premises by Gondal Taluka Panchayat to Gondal Municipality. The Government Resotion Exhibit 61 inter alia states that those Municipalities which took over the administration of primary education from Taluka Panchayats shall be liable to pay rent in respect of premises which were taken on rent by the Taluka Panchayats for the purpose of running the schools. It is difficult to say that by virtue of this Resolution transfer of tenancy rights from Gondal Taluka Panchayat to Gondal Municipality has been effected by operation of law. In order to hold that something has happened by operation of a law it is necessary to show that there is a law on the subject and that it authorizes such a transfer. It has not been shown to me by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties that there is any law which empowers the State Government by Resolution or otherwise to transfer the leasehold rights of one party to another. Merely because the State Government passed a Resolution on the subject and issued a notification it cannot mean that the transfer such as one in this case has taken place by operation of law. The concept of operation of law is much different from what the Courts below have thought of it. Opration of law presupposes firstly the existence of a law and secondly its operation to create a situation such as one created in the present case. Every direction given by an executive fiat issued by the State Government does not amount to operation of law.

( 8 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that though the Government resolved that the Municipality to which responsibility of primary education has been transferred shall pay the rent of the premises taken on rent by the Taluka Panchayat no premises could be transferred unless the tenant agreed to do