JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Though controversy lies within a very narrow compass, elaborate arguments on various principles of law were highlighted, which shall be dealt with after noticing the factual scenario involved.

3. Factual background as highlighted by the appellant and accepted to be correct in material aspects by the respondents run as follows : Appellant, a nationalized bank, on the basis of a deed of lease executed on 8.4.1964 is a tenant under the respondents presently. The original landlord was respondents predecessor-in-title. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as landlords ) filed a suit under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (in short the Bombay Rents Act ) in 1983 seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the landlord by order dated 8.4.1994. It was held that landlords had proved reasonable need and greater hardship would be caused to the landlords if prayer for eviction is not allowed. The said order was challenged in Appeal No. 208 of 1994 before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai by the present appellant, which was allowed. It was, inter alia, held that the hardship factor must be held against the landlords as the case was one where a purely business concern is pitted against the interest of the common man. It was noticed that the landlords had a flourishing business and had expanded his business and the present appellant being a nationalized bank existing for general public, and in that view of the matter the prayer for eviction was turned down. The landlords challenged the aforesaid order by filing a writ petition No. 5668 of 1995 before the Bombay High Court; which is pending. In the year 1999, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Maharashtra Rent Act ) was enacted w.e.f. 31.3.2000. The said Act, according to the appellant-bank, took away protection of Bombay Rents Act to the institutions like banks and companies. However, provisions of Section 58 save pending proceedings under the said Act. On 10.4.2000 the landlords sent notice to the appellant-bank claiming termination of tenancy with reference to Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act. The appellant-bank disputed the claim of the landlords. Subsequently a suit was filed in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai under the Maharashtra Rent Act bearing No. T.E. & R Suit No. 91/120 of 2000. In the suit the landlords sought vacant possession of the suit premises and mense profits at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per month.

4. Appellant-bank filed written statement refuting the stands taken that the tenancy had been lawfully terminated and the grounds indicated therefor. Reference was made also to the proceedings in the Bombay High Court under the Bombay Rents Act. It was contended that in view of Section 58 of the said Act, suit was not maintainable. The Small Causes Court, Mumbai passed judgment and decree in favour of the landlord holding that the suit was maintainable, the tenancy had been validly terminated and directed the appellant-bank to hand over possession of the suit premises to the landlord. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant-bank filed appeal No. 718 of 2001 before the Appellate Court which dismissed the same by order dated 12.7.2002. Appellant-bank filed writ petition (civil) No. 209 of 2003 in the Bombay High Court.

5. On 7.1.2003 an application for amendment of the writ petition was filed seeking to challenge validity of provisions contained in Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act. The High Court by the impugned order while allowing the application for amendment held that the case was covered by Section 3(1)(b) of the said Act and the writ petition was dismissed.

6. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that after having allowed the amendment relating to validity of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act, the High Court was not justifie