1. Heard Mr. Jagtiani, Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Madan, Sr. Counsel for Respondent. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. Present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Judgment and Order dated 26/9/2011 passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai presiding in C.R. No. 19 thereby dismissing the Application Exh. 26 filed by the Plaintiff in TE & R Suit No. 198/211 of 2003. Brief background of the facts leading to this litigation is essential.

3. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner Plaintiff is the landlord and Respondent Defendant is tenant in respect of the suit premises. The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has been brought into force w.e.f. 30/3/2000. Section 3(1)(b) of the said Act provides that provisions of that Act will not apply to a limited company having a paid up share capital of Rs. One Crore or more. In so far as Mumbai is concerned, the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit between the landlord and tenant in case where relationship is controlled by Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 or not is conferred on the Court of Small Caus