JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 2-5-2002 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in Appeal No. 600 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the trial Court has been dismissed. The trial Court by its judgment and order dated 28-8-2001 had decreed the suit filed by the respondents and had directed the petitioners to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises, comprising of Flat No. 7, situated on the 4th floor in a building known as Kalpataru Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited, 39th Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026. The said decree was passed in a suit filed by the respondents on the ground that under the agreement of leave and licence dated 11-8-1970, the petitioners were allowed to occupy the suit premises in consideration of compensation to the extent of Rs. 1250/- per month, in addition to Rs. 100 per month for the use of the garage. The said licence was for a temporary period and on expiry thereof there was repeated demand for vacant possession of the suit premises by the respondents. However, the petitioners continued to occupy the same. Meanwhile, a new section 15-A was inserted in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the old Rent Act" and under the said section 15-A of the old Rent Act, a status of deemed tenancy came to be granted to the licensees who were in occupation of the premises on or before 1-2-1973 and consequently the petitioners claimed protection under the old Rent Act. However, with effect from 31-3-2000 the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, hereinafter called "the new Rent Act" came into force and in terms of section 58 of the new Rent Act, the old Rent Act was repealed without specific provision specifying the reservation of any right that might had accrued in favour of any person under the old Rent Act. Besides, in terms of section 3(1)(b), the provisions of the new Rent Act were not made applicable to any premises let out or sub-let to the banks or the corporations established under any Act, private limited companies as well as public limited companies having paid up share capital of rupees one crore or above and the petitioners being undisputedly a public limited company, having paid up share capital of more than rupees one crore, the provisions of the new Rent Act are not applicable to the suit premises and therefore contending that the petitioners have lost the status of deemed tenancy, which was granted to the petitioners under the old Rent Act consequent to its repeal without saving any right in that regard, the petitioners have regained the status of licensee and the appropriate notice for vacating the premises and termination of licence was issued to the petitioners by the respondents and that therefore sought eviction of the petitioners on account of non-compliance of the said notice. The claim of the respondents was contested by the petitioners mainly contending that irrespective of the repeal of the old Rent Act and non-availability of the protection under the new Rent Act, the petitioners still continue to be the deemed tenant and therefore without terminating the tenancy of the petitioners by following the procedure known to law, no action for the eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises can lie in any Court and therefore the petitioners cannot be evicted and for the same reason the order of eviction would be bad. The trial Court rejected the contention of the petitioners and decreed the suit and the same has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. Hence the present petition.

3. Drawing attention to sections 15-A and 3(3) of the old Rent Act as well as to section 7(5) r/w sections 58 and 3(1)(b) of the new Rent Act, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document