JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the plaintiffs against concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the two courts below dismissing their suit as also their appeal therefrom. 2. Hearing rival submission of the respective Counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no such merit in this petition so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in its limited and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. The petitioners, who claim to the tenants of different premises leased to them respectively at different times and forming part of the suit buildings, also now claim to be tenants of the terrace as also of the air space above it. Courts below have for good and sound reasons rejected this claim. It is not possible to take of the matter a view different from the one rightly taken by the two courts below. There is also no such error apparent on the face of the record as to warrant interference. Tenants of different premises leased at different times and forming part of a multi-storeyed building cannot, without anything else, claim to have ipso facto become simultaneously the tenants also of the terrace and of the air space above it. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that at the time of the original separate lettings respectively to each of them, there was also a letting or a lease of the terrace to each of them. The Transfer of Property Act which generally governs the relationship of landlord and tenant and the leases between them, also does not provide for tenants of various different parts of demised premises of a multi-storeyed building to also ipso facto and without any lease or letting thereof become tenants also of the terrace or of the air space above it. No provision from the Transfer of Property Act was shown to confer such a right. 4. Coming to the Bombay Rent Act, there is also therein no such provision. Indeed, section 23-A of the Rent Act indicates just the contrary. There was a time when tenants were not permitted to put up radio aerials or television antennas on the terrace. This caused considerable hardship. With technological advances and developments and the widespread use of radios and televisions, the hardship was further aggravated. Indeed, section 23-A of the Rent Act indicates just the contrary. There was a time when tenants were not permitted to put up radio aerials or television antennas on the terrace. This caused considerable hardship. With technological advances and developments and the widespread use of radios and televisions, the hardship was further aggravated. To ameliorate this hardship and the inconvenience caused to the tenants governed and protected by the Bombay Rent Act, the State Legislature stepped in and enacted section 23-A by an Amendment Act in 1975. It was under this provision that the tenants became entitled to put up radio or television aerials on the terrace of the building. But they did not thereby become tenants of the terrace much less of the air space above it. Thus, the plaintiffs do not establish in fact any contractual tenancy qua the terrace and in law neither of the two statutes (supra) create or confer any such tenancy. 5. Certain English decisions were cited before the lower Court. We are, however, concerned with the statutory enactments here viz., the Bombay Rent Act which governs the relationship between landlords and tenants and the general law viz., the Transfer of Property Act. Neither of these confer the right claimed in the present proceedings. Tenancy is a matter of contract and, in certain cases, a matter of status. One is, however, at a loss to discover in any of these laws any provision as to even remotely support the contention of the plaintiffs that they should ipso facto be held to be tenants per se also of the terrace and of the air space above it. Such being the position under our own general and special laws, it is not possible to create or spell out any tenancy by a mere reference to or by merely relying upon some decisions of the English courts given in an altogether different context and under altogether different facts. One is here concerned with our own Indian statutes neither of which viz., the Transfer of Property Act or the Bombay Rent Act supports the claim of the plaintiffs that they are the tenants not only of the premises actually let out but also of that which is not let out viz. the terrace. 6. One is here concerned with our own Indian statutes neither of which viz., the Transfer of Property Act or the Bombay Rent Act supports the claim of the plaintiffs that they are the tenants not only of the premises actually let out but also of that which is not let out viz. the terrace. 6. This, however, does not mean that qua the relationship between tenants and landlords the provisions of section 23-A of the Rent Act do not apply. Far from it, indeed, Mr. Jhaveri, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as also Mr. Bhimrao Naik, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, concede that the rights of the tenants would certainly be governed by the express beneficial provision section 23-A of the Rent Act. This provision has also been discussed by the two courts below. However, with a view to remove any ambiguity in this regard, it is here held that those of the petitioner herein, who are tenants of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, would be entitled to all the benefits under section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act and the decrees passed by the courts below would be subject thereto. 7. Subject to what is stated above with regard to section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act, this petition fails and the same is rejected. Petition dismissed. -----