The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act, which determines the exclusion of certain entities from the protection of the Rent Act based on the premises tenanted by them.

This Civil Revision Application is directed against Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Bench of Court of Small Causes reversing Judgment of the Trial Judge dismissing landlord's suit and granting decree of applicant's ejectment.

2. Facts which are material for deciding this Civil Revision Application are as under :-

The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 (original Plaintiffs) are the owners of the property known as Elysium Mansion , 7, Walton Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005. Premises known as Office No.9 on the West wing of 4th floor of said building admeasuring 970 square feet are the subject matter of these proceedings. They were let out to Sterling General Insurance Company Limited. On 18th June, 1969 said Sterling General Insurance Company Limited gave these premises on licence to the present applicant. On 30th October, 1969, the applicant claims to have acquired from Indian Cotton Mills Federation a licence in respect of even the remaining 508 square feet of the West wing on the 4th floor known as Office No.10 (not a 4 subject matter of these proceedings) and thus occupies in all 1475 square feet area on the West wing, which, according to Applicant, constitutes one premises.

3. Respondent No.5 (original Defendant No.1) Oriental Insurance Company Limited is successor of Sterling General Insurance Company Limited and is a Public Sector Corporation having a paid up share capital of more than Rs.100,00,000/-, and therefore in view of provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Maharashtra Rent Act') does not have the protection of the Rent Act.

4. The Plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit before the Court of Small Causes for ejectment of Applicant, who was in occupation, and the Defendant No.5 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the tenant, from premises known as Office 5 No.9. The learned Trial Judge upheld the Applicant's contention that since applicant was not shown to be an entity excluded from protection of the Rent Act, a decree could not be passed against it, and dismissed the suit. The AppellateBench reversed this by its impugned Judgment.

5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for Applicant as well as the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 the landlords. The decree is assailed on three counts : first, that the decree is in- executable, as it is in respect of property which is not sufficiently identifiable; secondly, the pleas in plaint were not sufficiently clear on identification of suit premises & the Plaintiff's affidavit dated 4th September, 2004 was construed as a pleading without affording to applicant an opportunity to cross examine the deponent; and lastly and most importantly, that the Appellate Bench erred in holding that Applicant did not have the protection of Rent Act, misconstruing the 6 provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants submitted that even if Respondent No.5, the original tenant, is held to have no protection of the Rent Act, since applicant was a licensee, who was deemed to be tenant under Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel And Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Bombay Rent Act') upon termination of his tenancy, he would become direct tenant of the landlord under Section 14 of the Bombay Rent Act. Once the applicant is held to be the tenant of the landlord, since applicant is not excluded from protection of the Maharashtra Rent Act by operation of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent

Act, applicant's ejectment would have to be sought only by invoking provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Act.

6. The learned Counsel for both the parties relied on a number of Judgments in support of 7 their respective contentions.

7. First, I would deal with the contention that a decree could not be passed because the premises are not sufficiently identifiable. For this purpose the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant relied on Judgment in Nahara Singh Versus Harnak Singh a