DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

( 1 ) RULE, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondent waives service. By consent the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

( 2 ) THE Respondent instituted a suit for eviction against the Petitioner in December 2000 after the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 had come into force. Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act provides that the Act shall not apply to any premises let or sublet to banks, any public sector undertaking or corporation established by or under any Central or State Act or to foreign missions, international agencies, multinational companies, and private limited companies and public limited companies having a paid up capital of Rs. 1 Crore or more. The petitioner ceased to have the protection of rent control legislation upon the enactment of the Rent act of 1999.

( 3 ) THE foundation of the suit was that the premises were originally granted on lease to the petitioner by the predecessor-in-title of the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- and that the lease had expired by efflux of time in 1980. The Respondent claimed to have terminated the tenancy by a notice dated 22nd August, 2000 on the ground that though the lease had expired by efflux of time, the notice was by way of abundant caution. The Petitioner filed a written statement setting out its defence.

( 4 ) THE Learned Trial Judge in the Court of small Causes dismissed the suit by a judgment and order dated 24th January, 2003. The Trial Court noted that the Petitioner had not adduced any evidence. The Court, however, was of the view that the notice dated 22nd August, 2000 did not meet the requirements of a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This finding was based on the fact that though it was stated in the notice that the Respondent - Plaintiff was giving one months calender notice, in the concluding portion of the notice, the Petitioner was called upon to hand over possession of the premises within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The appeal that was preferred by the respondent was allowed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes on 25th February, 2005. The Appellate Bench took note of the Transfer of property (Amendment) Act 2002, which amended the provisions of Section 106 and pursuant to which a lease of immovable property from month to month is terminable on the expiry of 15 days notice. The transitory provisions contained in Section 3 of the amending Act provide that the Act shall apply to all notices in pursuance of which a suit or proceeding is pending at the commencement of the act and also to all notices that were issued before the commencement of the Act but where no suit or proceeding is filed before such commencement.

( 5 ) THE Petitioner has thereupon filed these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Apart from challenging the judgment of the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, the petitioner has in prayer clause (c) of the Petition sought a declaration of unconstitutionality in respect of the transitory provisions made in the transfer of Property (Amendment) Act 2002. In view of the challenge on the grounds of constitutional validity, the Petition has been placed for hearing before a Division Bench. In so far as the exemption granted by Section 3 (1) (b) of the maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 is concerned, the constitutional validity of the provision has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in crompton Greaves Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2002 (2) Bom. C. R. 300 ).

( 6 ) SECTION 106 of the Transfer of Property act, 1882, prior to its amendment, provided as follows :"106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage.- In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year, terminable, on the part of either lessor or les