JUDGMENT - GUTTAL G.H., J.:—The question in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is whether the sale by a landlord of the premise, possession of which was recovered in pursuance of a decree under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act-constitutes "reletting" of the premises within the meaning of section 17(1) of the Act. 2. The respondent No. 2 Basantibai who was the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 1971 obtained a decree for eviction against the respondent No. 1 on the ground that she needed the premises "reasonably and bona fide" for occupation by herself. She recovered possession of the premises in pursuance of the decree on 19-3-1975. But, on 9th September, 1975, within six months of the recovery of possession, Basantibai sold the premises to the petitioner. The respondent No. 1, the tenant, applied for possession under section 17(1) of the Act on the ground that the landlord, by selling the premises, has "relet" them within one year from the date of recovery of possession. Sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act does entitle a tenant to recover possession from the landlord and any person who may be in occupation, if the landlord "relets" the premises in the circumstances stated in that section (sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act.). The learned IInd Extra Assistant Judge, Nasik, who dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1981 against the Order of the Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Nasik, allowing the application of the respondent No. 1, held that the transfer by sale constitutes "relating" of the premises. 3. The general rule is that the landlord is not entitled to recover possession of any premises from a tenant as long as the latter pays or is ready and willing to pay standard rent and permitted increases and performs the terms of tenancy (section 12 of Bombay Rent Act). However, a landlord is entitled to recover possession on certain grounds set out in sub-section (1) of section 13 of Act which include the ground that the landlord "reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for occupation by himself of by any person for whose benefit the premises are held". However, a landlord is entitled to recover possession on certain grounds set out in sub-section (1) of section 13 of Act which include the ground that the landlord "reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for occupation by himself of by any person for whose benefit the premises are held". If the landlord exercises his right to recover possession under section 13(1)(g) of the Act, it follows that he must use if for the purpose for which the possession was recovered. IN order to ensure that this is done, the Legislature stepped in to lay down that the landlord shall occupy the premises within one month from the date of its recovery. (Sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act). In order that the landlord does not misuse the right under section 13(1)(g), sub-section (1) of section 17 stipulates that the landlord shall not relet the premises within one year (Sub-section (1) of section 17 of Bombay Rent Act). If the premises are so relet, there is a resultant right in the tenant to recovery possession and occupy the premises on the original terms and conditions (Sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act). 4. The question is whether this consequence of the reletting the premises within one year follows even where the landlord disposes of his interest in the property in any other manner. While section 13(1)(g) creates in the landlord the right to recover possession for his own occupation, sub-section (1) of section 17 lays down certain consequences which are designed to discourage the landlord from reletting the premises to a person other than the original tenant. The implied prohibition against reletting is not absolute and perpetual. The tenant gets the right to apply under sub-section (1) of section 17 only if the premises are relet within one year of the recovery of possession. In other words, if the landlord relets the premises after one year, the tenant has no right to apply for reinstatement into the premises. The stipulation of one year during which the landlord cannot relet the premises and the condition that the tenant must apply within one year of such reletting, signify the temporary nature of the prohibition against reletting. The landlord is not perpetually precluded from reletting. However, there is no prohibition at all against the disposal or transfer of the premises by other modes. The landlord is not perpetually precluded from reletting. However, there is no prohibition at all against the disposal or transfer of the premises by other modes. But the submission made by learned Counsel. Mr. Damle seeks to extend the meaning of "letting" to sales also. It is necessary to understand whether sale of the premises falls within the meaning of "reletting" of the premises. The word "let" literally means to permit. But in its ordinary meaning it is used in the context of rent, lease etc. as in the sentence "she let him the rooms or let him the premises" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1971, Vo. II). But in legal phraseology, it is synonymous with demise (Stroud's Judicial Dic., Vol. 3, 1986). The word "letting" has been construed to be equivalent to the word "lease" (Parker v. Sowerby)1, I W. R. 404. In fact, lease has been understood as letting (Stroud's Judicial Dic., 5th Ed., Vol. 3, 1986). The word "letting" has been used in different sections of the Bombay Rent Act to mean relationship of lessor and lessee. For instance, the definition of the word "premises" refers to the "building let or given on licence" and "premise let or given on licence for business" (S. 8 of Bom. R. Act). Similarly, the word "let" has been used in other sections to denote relationship of lessee and lessor (S. 6 of B.R. Act). Therefore, the act of letting is act of creating the interest of lease. Whereas the lease of immovable property is a transfer of right to enjoy such property in consideration of a price paid or promised, in a sale there is an absolute transfer of all rights in the property sold. No rights are left in the transferor. In a lease there is a partial transfer or demise and the rights left in the transferor are called the reversion. This basic difference between lease or letting and sale is of fundamental importance. 5. In order to know what a statute does mean, it is one important step to know what it does not mean. The word "letting" has been designedly employed in sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act and the words like "sale", "transfer" have been designedly omitted. The effect of this deliberate choice of the word "reletting" and the omission of any other mode of creating interest must be given full effect. The word "letting" has been designedly employed in sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act and the words like "sale", "transfer" have been designedly omitted. The effect of this deliberate choice of the word "reletting" and the omission of any other mode of creating interest must be given full effect. What the landlord is precluded from doing is reletting the premises. Sub-section (1) of section 17 does not preclude him from transferring of the whole of his interest in the premises. To hold that sale of the premises comes within the meaning of "reletting" is to ignore the basic difference between the two modes of transfer. The Legislature, aware of this distinction, has limited its prohibition to reletting and has not extended to other modes of transfer of the landlord's interest in the property. 6. The petitioner's contention on the only point urged in this petition is unfounded. There is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed. -----