JUDGMENT PATEL J.-These two revisional applications arise out of a proceeding Commenced by the tenant under section 17B of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The short facts are as below: 2. There was a two-storied building in Mazagaon belonging to the defendants, the four petitioners. The ground floor of that building, which consisted of a hall, one room, one kitchen, one passage, one bath-room, two W. Cs., and two verandahs, was let out to the plaintiff, which it a Club. In or about 1958 the defendants wanted to demolish the building and re-erect the same. They, therefore, obtained a certificate from the Tribunal under the provisions of the Rent Act and thereafter instituted an ejectment suit against the plaintiff. The Court, on the defendants giving the statutory undertakings, passed a decree in ejectment. The defendants thereafter completed the building by about the month of August, 1958. There was some dispute between the parties about the allotment of a flat, but on May 6, 1958, the defendants offered one flat on the ground floor to the plaintiff. As the area offerec1 was about one-fifth of the area originally occupied by it, the plaintiff insisted on being assigned the entire floor area on the first floor which the defendants refused to do. Consequently the plaintiff instituted the suit under section 17B of the Rent Act for possession of four flats on the first floor. The flats are still vacant. 3. The defendants resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiff was entitled only to one tenement, that they had offered one tenement to him but he did not avail himself of the same and that he was not entitled to more than decided on one tenement. The trial court granted two tenements on the first floor. Both the parties appealed and the Bench of the small Cause Court granted the plaintiff four flats on the first floor. The defendanta now come in revision before this court. 4. Under section 13 of the above. Act a landlord could evict his tenant only on limited grounds. In 1950 to meet accommodation shortage, amendments were made to the Act enabling the landlord to obtain. Possession for demolishing and rebuilding the premises and conditions were imposed for guarding the actual tenants. For effectively achieving the object clause (hh) in section 13 (1) was added, and sub-sections (3A) and (3B) were. In 1950 to meet accommodation shortage, amendments were made to the Act enabling the landlord to obtain. Possession for demolishing and rebuilding the premises and conditions were imposed for guarding the actual tenants. For effectively achieving the object clause (hh) in section 13 (1) was added, and sub-sections (3A) and (3B) were. And added to section 13(1), and sub-section 13(A). Under clause (hh) of sub-section (1) of section 13 the landlord became entitled to recovery possession of premises consisting of not more than two floors for the purpose of demolishing and rebuilding the same. Sub-section (3-A) Prohibited the Court from passing the decree unless the landlord produced a certificate from tribunal granted under sub-section (3B) the Tribunal had a discretion to grant a certificate undertaking . under sub-section (3) the Tribunal had a disserting to grant a certificate after satisfying itself amongst other things that. "(ii) the plans provide that the new building shall include tenemenis equivalent to the tenements which are proposed to be demolished. For the purpose of this paragraph a tenement shall be deemed to be equivalent if the floor space of the ,tenement, of greater or less than the floor space of the corresponding tenement proposed lished by more than ten per cent." 5. Section 17 A enables the tenant to give the landlord a notice"€) his intention to occupy the premises from which he had been levicted if the landlord did not commence to build after eviction and gave him a right to make application to the Court if the landlord failed to deliver possession of the please. comprised to him. In this sub-section the word "premises" has been; used Which must necessarily mean premises which were actually let to the tenant and & com which he was evicted. It is not necessary to refer to sub-sections (2) and; (3l) of that section since they are not pertinent to the present discussion. Section 17B enables the tenant after the landlord had demolished the original building-or premises and commenced erection of the new building to give notice of his interim or prisms to occupy a tenant in the new building on its completion on. Certain conditions. It is not necessary to refer to those conditions as they are not relevant for, the present purpose. Certain conditions. It is not necessary to refer to those conditions as they are not relevant for, the present purpose. Section 17C prescribes what the landlord must to on the accept the receipt of notice and requires him to intimate to the tenant the date, on which the erection would be complete and on the said date the tenant would, be entitled to occupy the tenement. Sub-section (2) of section 17C provides for consequences on the failure of the tenant to occupy the tenement ,and provides that the tenancy. shall stand terminated and entitles the landlord to recovery sum equal to three times the amount of the monthly standard rent in respect of the tenement. Sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) provides that iftheI8.ndlord fails to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1) or to place the tenant in vacant possession of the tenement. he shall be liable on conviction to be. Punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with, fine or with both in addition to his liability to place the tenant in vacant posBe9iJion of the tenement. Originally when the word "tenement" Was used in section is 7B, .it effectively assured the tenant of allotment to him in the new, was building of almost the same area, for under the terms of section 13 (3B) before the Tribunal gave certificate. lt had to be satisfied by clause (ii) the now omitted that the tenements were of comparable sizes with the original “tenements” By added clause 5(12) a “tenement was defined to mean "a room or group of rooms rented or offered for rent as a unit". 6. Now, in 1953 by Act LXI of 1953 certain amendments were made to Section 13. Section 13 (3A) (a) was amended with a. desire to make it more Workable by enabling compliance with the municipal rules and bye. laws and section 13 (3B) was amended by deleting sub-section (ii) reproduced above on -the ground that amendment envisaged modern standards as to sizes of rooms, halls etc. The present question articles because of this deletion. It is obvious that under the original amendment of 1950 the intention was to get again to the tenant almost the same area as he first occupied in the new building. The present question articles because of this deletion. It is obvious that under the original amendment of 1950 the intention was to get again to the tenant almost the same area as he first occupied in the new building. By this mission of clause (ii) of sub-section (3B) of section 13, to some extent the restriction imposed as to similar areas is deleted, though it was never intended that the tenant should lose the right to equal premises. It is obvious that when the Legi Slature deleted clause (ii) it did not intent unscrupulous landlords may instead of larger flats build single room tenements for which the tenant has necessary instead of single room tenements may build palatial tenements which approver of tenants could not possibly afford. Even so, the Legislature, deleted clause (ii) to give reasonable latitude to the owners of building in the correction Of a new building. But the effect of the deletion of clause (ii) is to deprive the tenant either intentionally or unintentionally, to say the least, of the benefit, to which he was entitled under the deleted clause. We are not prepared to accept Mr. Narimans argument that merely by the deletion of the ,clause above referred to the Legislature intended to enable owners of building certificate such large modifications in the construction so as to frustrate the provisions of the Rent Act and throw out their tenants by constructing in such way as 1;0 . see that they are not in a position to accept the tenancy or to get rights equal) to that in the demolished premises. Yet the fact remains that by deletion of the clause in section 13 (3B) without a corresponding amendment of Mon 17B what-the tenant is entitled to occupy is "a tenement" entitled a tenement as defined by selection 5(12) which means a room or group of rooms which are either) ready rented as a unit or offered for rent as a unit. 7. 7. The learned counsel for the opponent contended that in view of the object of the Act: and a clear intention on the part of the Legislature to safeguard the interest on the tenant we should disregard the words "a tenement" or 80" ttlodify1their meaning to include not only one such unit but several units and holding that the tenant is entitled to possession of as many units as are equivalent in area from which the tenant is evicted. He has relied upon Maxwells Inter pretation of Statutes, 11th Ed, at p. 221, where the learned author says. If it were possible for us to as 80 in fairness to the Legislature we would indeed have not hesitated to do so. Unfortunately, however, we cannot forget the genesis of the use of the word and its definition in the definition Clause. It is an accepted rule that ordinarily a word should carry the meaning given to it by the definition unless the context negatives that meaning. In the present case it is difficult to say that the context negatives that meaning. Originally when the expression "a tenement" was used in this and the cognate sections it carried the defined meaning. Thereafter nothing has happened from which it can be inferred that that meaning was not intended. Apart from this, though it is possible to say that in a legislative enactment the word "tenement" is capable of meaning more than one units or flats, in its present context it is not possible to do so. It introduces obvious difficulties. Supposing we were to omit the article "a" and instead of "tenement" read "tenements", then what are the limitations which must be observed by the Court in making a decree? We would not, therefore, be only required to change the meaning of the word but we would also be further required to introduce qualifications to the jurisdiction of the Court in the making of the decree, adding the words "making a. total area equal to that which was occupied by the tenant before eviction". Even though in such cases the approach should be liberal, it is doubtful if the Court while construing a section is entitled to so tamper with it as to make out a meaning which it thinks was meant by the Legislature without using those Words. Even though in such cases the approach should be liberal, it is doubtful if the Court while construing a section is entitled to so tamper with it as to make out a meaning which it thinks was meant by the Legislature without using those Words. It may be that in a given case an evicted tenant was Occupying more than one tenement under his old tenancy though the tenancy may be single. It is possible for him in such a case to demand more than one tenement in the reconstruct_ ed building for the obvious reason that though he had a single tenancy in the old building, he was still a tenant in respect of several tenements and, therefore, would be entitled under section 17B to demand more than one tenement in the new building. The present case, however, is not of that type. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff was a tenant of only one tenement and the plaintiff, therefore, could only demand a tenement as provided by the section. In this view of the, matter, therefore, it is not possible to sustain the interpretation of the section by the two Courts below. 8. The learned appellate Judges said that the rights afforded to the tenant even after deletion of clause (ii) of section 13 (3B) must be regarded to have been meant by the Legislature to be reasonably substantial and a section 17B enables the tenant to specify the particular tenement which he intends to occupy and section 17C gives him a right to occupy the same plaintiff must be given four tenements. Practical difficulties are bound to arise if sections 17B and 17C are construed to give the tenant the choice of the particular tenement. Where large number of tenements are built, it is more than likely that severai tenants might choose to have only one particular tenement. One fails to see how all of them can occupy one tenement. Though, therefore, the words used in section 17C are "the tenement", reference to section 17B under which he is required to give notice of his intention to occupy "a tenement" would suggest that his is not the final choice. One fails to see how all of them can occupy one tenement. Though, therefore, the words used in section 17C are "the tenement", reference to section 17B under which he is required to give notice of his intention to occupy "a tenement" would suggest that his is not the final choice. If such a final choice were to be intended to be given to a tenant, the Legislature in section 17B would have said that the tenant "may give notice to the landlord of his intention to occupy a particular tenement" or "a tenement of his choice" which words are not in the section. 74. It would seem, therefore, that the tenement that he has to ask for and expect the landlord to give him is a tenement which is practically similarly situate as far as possible with the tenement which he vacated. The words employed in section 17C are not so much relevant for enabling the Court to get over the language of section 17B regarding the meaning of the words "a tenement". It is also not possible to substitute the word "the" for the word "a" because there is no tenement to which the word "the" COUld apply. On the whole, therefore, we must hold that the plaintiff is entitled to one tenement only. 9. It is, however, urged that this would frustrate the very purpose of the Act and would enable an owner of a building to get his tenants evicted and make it impossible for them to occupy any of the tenements. We do not think that this fear is justified. Section 12 disentitles a landlord to recovery of possession of the rented premises. Section 13 (1) (hh) enables the landlord to sue for possession but the Court has to be satisfied that the demand is bona fide and reasonable. Before filing his suit the landlord is required to obtain a certificate from the Tribunal. It is true that before the Tribunal grants the certificate it is not required to issue a notice to the tenants and is not required to see that the areas of the tenements are similar to the areas of tenements to be demolished. Before filing his suit the landlord is required to obtain a certificate from the Tribunal. It is true that before the Tribunal grants the certificate it is not required to issue a notice to the tenants and is not required to see that the areas of the tenements are similar to the areas of tenements to be demolished. Even so if the Court finds that the landlord is so constructing his building that the tenements cannot be suitable to the tenants intended to be evicted the Court would be entitled to hold that the requirements of the landlord are not reasonable and bona fide. This inference is justified if one considers the whole scheme of the Act which does show that the rights that are given by the Act to the tenants are not intended to be illusory. It is true that the undertaking to be given is that the new premises shall not contain "not less than two times the number of residential tenements and not less than two times the floor area". Yet the intention is clear that as far as possible the tenants rights should not be prejudiced and that subject to the rules of the Municipal Corporation within whose area the proposed building is to be built, the floor area of the tenement to be allotted to the tenant should be similar to the area from which the tenant is being evicted. This construction is supported by the provisions of sections 17, 17B and 17C in which care is taken to safeguard the tenant in all possible respects. The only object in omitting sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (3B) (a) of section 13 was to make matters consistent with modern ideas of residential flats and not to give the owner of the building a free hand. Having regard to the previous history of the legislation and all the other provisions of the Rent Act we will be justified in hold mg that in deciding the reasonableness and bona fide8 of the owner the Court must take the nature of new tenements into account. The Court must require the production of plans for the proposed building and if it decides to evict the tenants one of the undertakings that must be insisted upon is that the landlord shall not deviate from the plans approved by the Court except for reasons of convenience. The Court must require the production of plans for the proposed building and if it decides to evict the tenants one of the undertakings that must be insisted upon is that the landlord shall not deviate from the plans approved by the Court except for reasons of convenience. The Court would be justified in seeing that the tenant gets the protection as is intended to be given by the scheme of the Act. 10. It was argued before us by the learned counsel for the opponent that this is a revisional application, and at best a question of construction of a section, and therefore we should not interfere. If it were so simple as that, we would not have hesitated to dismiss this application. Tile question, however, is one which involves the jurisdiction of the Court to award possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiff. In view of this fact and in view of the importance of the question involved we could not in fairness refuse to entertain this application. 11. In the result the rule is made absolute and it is declared that the plaintiff is entitled to a tenement in the premises, which the plaintiff chooses to be flat No.5 having an area of 478.5 sq. ft. on the first floor 01 the building of the defendants. We further direct that the defendants do place the plaintiff in possession of the same. The monthly rent of the flat in question will be Re. 57 subject to the right of the landlord to have the standard rent determined under the provisions of section 17B. The rest of the decree of the lower Court is set aside. There will be no order as to costs throughout.