R.M. Savant, J.

The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is invoked against the judgment and order dated 27/02/2017 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by which order the Revision Application filed by the Applicant herein i.e. the Defendant No.1 came to be dismissed and resultantly the judgment and order dated 26/03/2014 passed by the Trial Court came to be confirmed. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27/02/2017, the Applications at Exhibits 31, 32 and 55 filed by the Applicant herein also came to be rejected.

2. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Civil Revision Application can in brief be stated thus :

The Applicant herein is the original Defendant No.1 in the suit in question being TER Suit No.48/62/2009. The said suit has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein who are the original Plaintiffs. The said suit has been preceded by a Notice dated 11/02/2009, served/received by the Defendant No.1 on 14/02/2009, by which the tenancy of the Applicant herein in respect of the plot of land in question came to be terminated. The said suit has been filed for possession of the premises. In so far as the plaint is concerned, it has been averred in the plaint that the Applicant herein is a public limited company and its share capital is over Rs. 1 Crore and therefore it is not entitled to the protection of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short "the Rent Act.) In the said suit the Respondent Nos.1 to 12 herein filed an application (Exhibit 9) for interim relief.

3. To the said application, the Applicant herein i.e. the Defendant No.1 filed a reply wherein a preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain and try the suit under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act (for short "the PSCC Act") was raised. It was the case of the Applicant that its share capital is Rs. 93,74,000/- which was below Rs. 1 Crore and therefore it is entitled to the protection of the Rent Act. A written statement came to be filed by the Applicant herein i.e. the Defendant No.1. In the said written statement it was averred to the following effect :-

"11(ii) That the Plaintiffs have also taken out an Application for Injunction being Ex. No. 10 of 2009 to which the Defendant No.1 has filed an Affidavit in Reply dated 6.4.2009 limited to the Preliminary Objection of Jurisdiction on the ground that the Defendant No.1 does not have a Paid Up Share Capital of Rs. One Crore or more and in support of the said contention the Defendant No.1 have annexed at Ex.A to the said Reply dated 6.4.2009 the Certificate of the Auditors of the Defendant No.1 showing the Paid Up Share Capital of the Defendant No.1 at Rs. 93,74,000/- (Rs. Ninety Three Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand only) as on 30.9.2008 with a True Copy of the Certified Auditors Report and Balance Sheet as on 31.3.2008 of the Defendant No.1."

The relevant paragraph of the said Reply dated 06/04/2009 is paragraph 2 which for the sake of ready reference is reproduced herein under :-

"2. At the outset I submit that this Hon'ble Court has no Jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the above suit and/or that the above suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Defendant No.1 does not have a Paid Up Share Capital of Rs. One Crore or more and consequently the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 apply to the suit premises and therefore this Hon'ble Court has no Jurisdiction to entertain try and decide the suit under the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882, Hereto annexed and marked Ex A (Colly) is a copy of the Certificate of the Auditors of the Defendant No.1 showing the Paid Up Capital of the Defendant No.1 at Rs. 93,74,000/- (Rs. Ninety three Lakhs seventy four thousand only) as on 30.9.2008 with a True Copy of the Auditors Report and Balance Sheet as on 31.3.2008 of the Defendan