The main legal point established is that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is not applicable to open land, and the parties are governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.

Heard Mr.Dani, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr.Mankapure, learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. Admit. Mr.Mankapure waives service on behalf of the Respondents. By consent, appeal is taken up for final hearing.

3. This appeal is preferred by the original defendants against the judgment and decree dated 14th October, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karad in Special Civil Suit No.13 of 2003. By that judgment, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit instituted by the Respondents and directed the appellants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property within two months from that order. The appellants were further directed to pay Rs. 13,380/- being the arrears of rent till the date of filing of the suit and Rs.5,000/- per month by way of damages from the date of institution of the suit till the delivery of vacant possession. The parties shall hereinafter be referred as per their original status in the trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs instituted suit for recovery of possession of a open plot having length eastwest northern side 80 ft. and southern side 100 ft. and the width south-north 90 ft. adjacent to the western road out of C.S.No.223/10/1 final plot No.20 of Karad T.P.Scheme No.1, as more particularly described in paragraph No.1B of the Plaint (for short the suit property).

5. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the suit property is their ancestral property and their father let out the suit property to the predecessors of the Defendants on monthly rent of Rs.60/-. It is their further case that the Defendants stopped the business and also did pay the arrears of rent of Rs.32,280/-from 1st May, 1956 to 31st March, 2000 @ Rs.60 per month. The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the Bombay Rent Act) was repealed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the M.R.Act). The M.R.Act came into force on 1st April, 2000. Since the suit property is open land, the provisions of the M.R.Act are not applicable and consequently the Defendants have no protection of M.R.Act.

6. The plaintiffs gave notice on 2nd December, 2002 u/s.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short T.P.Act ) calling upon the Defendants to hand over possession as also pay the arrears of rent and the damages. The Defendants gave false reply on 2nd December, 2002 and refused to comply the notice. The plaintiffs therefore instituted the present suit under the T.P.Act.

7. The Defendants filed written statement at Exh. 24 and resisted the suit. They contended that the Plaintiffs had earlier filed Regular Civil Suit No.66 of 1961 under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. The said suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred civil appeal No.307 of 1963 which was also dismissed. They denied that they lost the protection of the Bombay Rent Act and contended that the Plaintiffs, by misinterpreting the provisions of M.R.Act, have instituted the present suit. They contended that they are carrying on business in the suit property and the plaintiffs have no right to seek possession of the suit property.

8. On the basis of rival contention of the parties the learned Trial Judge framed the necessary issues. The parties led evidence. On the basis of material on record, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit on 14th October, 2008. It is against this judgment, the present first appeal is preferred.

9. Mr.Dani, learned counsel for the Defendants raised the following contentions:

(i) Section 2(2) of the M.R.Act provides for the applicability of the said Act to the premises or houses let out in the areas to which the Bombay Rent Act, among other Acts were extended and applied before the date of commencement of the M.R.Act and that such premises or houses continue to be so let on that date in such areas which are specified in Schedule 1 to the M.R.Act, notwithstanding that the area ceases to be the description therein specified. He therefore submitted that since the Bombay Rent