The validity of a termination notice and its compliance with the provisions of the Trust Deed were central to the court's decision.

B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

1. This Civil Revision Application filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2009 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 70 of 2007. By this judgment and order, the order passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff landlord was confirmed and the Appeal was dismissed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the Applicant herein (the Defendant before the Trial Court) is a statutory Corporation formed and established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. It is wholly owned by the Central Government. The Respondents are all trustees of Shri Lalsingh Mansingh Trust (for short, the “said Trust”) which is the owner of office premises admeasuring 4551.68 sq. ft. on the 3rd Floor, Above Block C and D of the building known as Harganga Mahal Estate situated at Khodadad Circle, Dadar, Mumbai 400 014 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit premises”).

3. The Defendant had leased the suit premises from the said Trust for a period of five years commencing from 10th October, 1970 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,625.70. The registered lease deed dated 15th September, 1971 was accordingly executed between the parties. On behalf of the Trust the lease deed was executed by Gangasingh Motisingh as a trustee of the said Trust. This lease deed expired by the efflux of time on 10th October, 1974.

4. Despite this, the Defendant continued in occupation, possession and enjoyment of the suit premises and according to it, the same was occupied as a lawful tenant and the rent was accepted by the Respondents even after the expiry of the lease deed. It is therefore the case of the Defendant that after the expiry of the lease deed and since the landlord Trust accepted rent even thereafter, it had become a monthly tenant of the said Trust.

5. Be that as it may, after a period of about 25 years, a notice dated 30th March, 2001 was issued on behalf of three trustees of the said Trust terminating the tenancy of the Defendant and asking them to handover peaceful possession of the suit premises within the expiry of one month from the date of the notice. According to the Defendant, even though there were four trustees, the termination notice was issued only on behalf of three trustees viz. Gangasingh Motisingh, Digvijaysingh Gangasingh and Ishwarsingh Gangasingh. Even though there was a fourth trustee viz. Kishoresingh Gangasingh, the termination notice was not issued on behalf of the fourth trustee. In these circumstances, it is contended before me that the termination notice is bad and consequently, so is the suit filed by the landlord as there is no valid termination of the tenancy of the Defendant.

6. Be that as it may, the Defendant replied to the termination notice vide its reply dated 30th April, 2001 inter-alia contending that the tenancy of the Defendant was protected under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and therefore, refused to vacate the suit premises. What is important to note over here is that in this reply, the Defendant never raised any contention that the termination notice was defective since it was not issued on behalf of all the trustees.

7. Since the termination notice was not complied with, all the four trustees of the said Trust namely, Gangasingh Motisingh, Digvijaysingh Gangasingh, Kishoresingh Gangasingh and Ishwarsingh Gangasingh filed a suit being T.E. & R. Suit No. 553/584 of 2001 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the Defendant for possession of the suit premises alongwith mesne profits. This suit was contested by the Defendant by filing its written statement. In the written statement, one of the contentions raised was that the suit was not maintainable on the ground that the ter