Judgment This petition has been placed before the Full Bench pursuant to order dated 15.11.2011 by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: S.A.Bobde and Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, JJ.) referring the following question for consideration before the Larger Bench:- "Whether a writ petition arising out of order passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,1971 should be placed before a learned Single Judge of this Court in accordance with Rule 18(3) of the Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960 or should be placed before a Division Bench?" 2. The reference has been made by the Division Bench on account of the views expressed by another Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Rebello F.I. & Bhatia J.H., JJ.) in Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr., 2010 (4) Bom.C.R. 807 taking the view that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Public Premises Act") deals with the subject which is covered by Article 323-B(2)(h) of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261 will apply. According to the said Division Bench, as per the said direction, writ petition challenging orders passed by the Tribunal under a Legislation which is referable to Articles 323-A or 323-B will have to be necessarily heard by Division Bench of the High Court. 3. Ms. Jayashree Surati, Learned Counsel for the petitioner supported the order of reference. 4. Mr. Rafiq Dada, Learned Counsel appearing for respondents supported the view taken by the Division Bench in Nusli Neville Wadia case (supra) and submitted that since the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act is not specified in any of the 43 clauses of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 in Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960, this petition challenging the order of the City Civil Court under the Public Premises Act will have to be heard by the Division Bench of this Court and under the Rules such matters cannot be heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It is submitted that if the submission made by a learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is accepted, clauses 4 to 43 of Rule 18 in Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960 would be rendered otiose or nugatory. It is submitted that in view of the explanation, the orders by the quasi judicial authority specifically mentioned in clauses (1) to (43) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 in Chapter XVII, it will be governed by Rule 18 and the explanation will not cover the orders passed by any other quasi judicial authority. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for parties, we find that Clause (3) of Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960, is wide enough to include the orders passed by any quasi judicial authority under any enactment, even if such explanation is not covered by clause 1, 2 and 4 to 43 of Rule 18. It is necessary to note that the original Rule 18 had 5 clauses providing that the orders passed under the Rules and legislations specified therein may be challenged in the writ petition before the Single Judge. It appears that subsequently several clauses came to be added to Rule 18. In the year 1997 by Notification dated 16.10.1997, the Explanation came to be added. It was thereafter by Notification dated 15.7.1999 that Clause (3) of Rule 18 came to be amended to insert the words "or by any quasi Judicial Authority". It appears to us that this amendment to Clause (3) of Rule 18 was made in the year 1999 to cover orders of any quasi Judicial Authority under any other legislation which may not have been specified in Clause (1) to (43). Hence, the order passed by the quasi Judicial Authority under the Public Premises Act,1971 is also covered by Rule 18(3) so as to indicate that the petitions under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of quasi Judicial Authority under the Public Premises Act,1971 is to be heard and decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 6. 6. Coming to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nusli Neville Wadia case (supra), the observations of the Division Bench that the orders passed under the Public Premises Act, 1971 are covered by Article 323-B(2)(h) of the Constitution cannot be accepted because Article 323-B will come into operation only when the appropriate legislature makes a law providing for establishment of a Tribunal for adjudication or trial of any disputes, complaints or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in the relevant sub-clause of clause (2). Hence, even assuming that the Public Premises Act,1971 can be treated as a law relating to rent, its regulation and control and tenancy issues including the rights, title and interest of landlords and tenants, the Public Premises Act is not a law made by Parliament under Article 323-B(1) & (2)(h). It is only when the appropriate legislature makes such a law under Article 323-B that the consequence provided in Article 323-B will ensue. 7. The reason why, the Supreme Court provided in L.Chandra Kumar case (supra) that petition against the orders of a Tribunal considered under a legislation which is referable to Article 323-A of the Constitution will have to be heard by the Division Bench of High Court, is that on account of a specific provision in Article 323-A, upon constitution of Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 enacted by Parliament under Article 323-A, jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was sought to be ousted. Since, the Supreme Court held that such a provision would be violative of basic structure of the Constitution, in order to save the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 and the provisions of Article 323-A of the Constitution, from the challenge to their constitutional validity on the ground of violation of basic structure of the Constitution, the Supreme Court laid down that the petitions may be filed before the High Court on limited ground for challenging the orders of the Administrative Tribunals established under the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 enacted by Parliament under Article 323-A of the Constitution, and that such writ petitions must be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. 8. 8. Since the Public Premises Act,1971 is not an enactment made by Parliament in exercise of powers under Article 323B, the question of applying the above direction of the Supreme Court in L.Chandra Kumar case cannot arise. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in Nusli Neville Wadia case (supra). It is clear that under the provisions of Rule 18(3) of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960, a petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Appellate Authority under the Public Premises Act,1971 will be required to be heard and decided by a learned single Judge of this Court. The decision in Nusli Neville Wadia case is, therefore, overruled in so far as the Division Bench in Nusli Neville Wadia case has taken a view that when the order is passed by a Tribunal under a legislation relating to any subject referable to Article 323-B(2) of the Constitution, the petitions challenging such orders will have to be necessarily heard by the Division Bench. It is clarified that the directions given by the Supreme Court in L.Chandra Kumar case will apply only when the Tribunal is established under a law which is specifically made by the appropriate legislature in exercise of powers conferred by Articles 323-A or 323-B. Merely because a legislation, existing in future, deals with a subject referable to any sub-clause in Clause (2) of Article 323-B of the Constitution, such legislation does not by itself become a legislation under Article 323-B of the Constitution. 9. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered as under:- "Writ petitions arising out of the orders passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971 should be placed before the learned Single Judge of this Court in accordance with Rule 18(3) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960." The reference, accordingly, stands disposed of.