R.M. Lodha, J.

The learned Single Judge of this court doubted the correctness of the view of another learned Single Judge in the case of Veetrag Investments &Finance Co Vs M/S Premier Brass & Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, 2002 (3) Mh.L.J.455 (Veetrag Investments I) and passed the following order:Â-

"The principal question raised in this Chamber Summons is that the disputed property (nonresidential) is tenanted property and if it is so the same cannot be subject matter of attachment and sale in the course of execution of the decree. Reliance is Placed on the decision of the Single judge of this Court reported in 2002(3) Mh.L.J. 455 in Veetrag Investments & Finance Co. Vs. Premier Brass & Metal Works Pvt.Ltd.. Mumbai. In this decision, the Court has mainly adverted to the Provisions of Section 26 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. 1999 to conclude that the tenant has no right to sublet or transfer the premises held by him, whether they are for residential or nonresidential purposes (see para 10): and on that basis, found that the leasehold rights cannot be put to sale. In my opinion, prima facie, by virtue of section 56 of the Act, which is a non-obstante provision, the limitation or restriction imposed in section 26 of the Act is lifted and would enable the decree holder to enforce the decree qua such premises, for it recognizes that the tenant or any person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the tenant can claim or receive any sum or any consideration as a condition of the relinquishment, transfer or assignment of his tenancy of any premises. The judgment of this Court pressed into service has obviously not considered the efficacy of Section 56 of the Act, which has a non-obstante clause. In the circumstances, the appropriate course is to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement of the question that arises for consideration in this case. Accordingly, the papers be placed before the learned Chief Justice for assigning it to a larger Bench.''

2. This was how the present Full Bench has been constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

3. In the order of reference, the learned Single judge has not narrated the necessary facts. The learned counsel for the parties were not ad-idem on facts before us. Bereft of facts,in the circumstances, the neat question of law for our consideration is: whether the interest of the tenant of non-residential premises to which the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.1999 applies, is attachable and saleable in execution of the degree against the tenant?

4. The answer to the aforesaid question would depend on the consideration of the aspects: is the tenant’s right to remain in occupation of the non-residential premises a property: is such property saleable and has the tenant disposing power over the interest of the tenancy for his benefit.

5. The word “property� has nowhere been defined under the Transfer of Property Act. The Civil Procedure Code also does not define the term “property�. The term property possesses a variety of different applications having different degrees and includes, in its widest sense all a person’s legal rights of whatever description. In its ordinary and general meaning, the property is not only the thing which is subject matter of ownership but also includes dominium or the right of ownership or partial ownership and it indicates and describes every possible interest which a party can have, and will include any benefit that a person is entitled to take out of the property of another.

6. A lease, in the generic sense is the form of encumbrance which consists in a right to the possession and use of the property owned by some other person.

7. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (For short TP Act') provides thus:

105. Lease defined:-A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised