VASANTKUMAR RADHAKISAN VORA DEAD Vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 month's time from 22nd January, 1975.

(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 appellant, is that quit notice issued under Sec. 106 read with Sec. 111 (h) of the T. P. Act is invalid. By issue of quit notice no right had been accrued to the respondent. Termination of tenancy became operative only on expiry of one month given thereunder, i.e. February 28, 1975, by which date the State Act became inoperative as from February 1, 1975 the Central Act came into force. The respondent under the Central Act acquired, by statutory operation, the immoveable property including the demised one in Frere Land Estate and thereby became a new landlord. Termination of tenancy is an act inter vivos by operation of Sec. 106 read with Sec.111 (h) of T. P. Act. Under Sec. 109 thereof, the respondent, not being a living person is not entitled to the benefit of the quit notice as its operation is not saved by Sec. 2(d) and Sec. 5 thereof. The suit, thereby, is not maintainable since admittedly no quit notice determining the tenancy was issued after February 1, 1975. The edifice of the argument was built up on shifting and when it is subjected to close scrutiny it crumbled down traceless. Let us first deal with the arguments on the foot of the provisions of T. P. Act. Section 2(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides saving of the previous operation of law. It states that,:-