Judicial admissions by a party regarding tenancy are binding and do not require further proof, establishing the landlord-tenant relationship despite statutory protections.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, the Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal.

2. By this petition, Petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 5 July 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court dismissing P. Appeal No. 213 of 2018 and confirming the decree dated 26 April 2018 passed by the Small Causes Court in T.E. & R. Suit No. 346/366 of 2001. The Small Causes Court has dismissed the suit filed by the Petitioner seeking eviction of the Respondents-Defendants by holding the same as not maintainable.

3. A brief factual narration for better understanding of the issue at hand would be necessary. Petitioner is a Banking Corporation registered under the provisions of Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Ordinance, as well as, under the Companies Act, 1956 and has its Indian head office at HSBC Building at 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mumbai 400 001. The Mercantile Bank of India Limited owned and possessed building then named as ‘Mercantile Bank Building’ situated at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mumbai. By two Indentures of Lease dated 21 January 1953, the Mercantile Bank Limited demised on to the Governor of Bombay premises situated on the 3 rd and 4th floor of the building for a period of 1 year from 1 July 1952 to 30 June 1953. It appears that after the expiry of the tenure of the lease on 30 June 1953, no further document has been executed extending or renewing the lease. Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) is a statutory corporation constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. It appears that MSEB started occupying the suit premises since the year 1954 and started paying rent in respect thereof at the rate of Rs.17,763.93/- per month. The Mercantile Bank of India Limited was succeeded by Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. (Petitioner) and this is how Petitioner became owner of the entire building which came to be renamed as ‘HSBC building’. According to the Petitioner, MSEB started paying monthly rent in respect of the suit premises to it.

4. Petitioner terminated MSEB’s tenancy in respect of the suit premises by letter dated 16 March 1992 and called upon it to handover possession thereof. Another letter dated 27 November 1998 was served by the Petitioner to Respondent-MSEB communicating that it required the suit premises for expanding its business as a banking institution and called upon MSEB to handover possession of the suit premises.

5. According to the Petitioner, after coming into effect of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) w.e.f. 31 March 2000, Respondent-MSEB lost protection under the Act on account of its inclusion in Section 3(1)(b) thereof. By letter dated 1 August 2000, Petitioner issued yet another letter reiterating the contents of earlier letters dated 16 March 1992 and 27 November 1998 and called upon MSEB to handover vacant possession of the premises. On 16 August 2000, Respondent-MSEB issued another response stating that it was in possession and occupation of the suit premises since 1954 and denied that its tenancy was terminated in any manner. A detailed response was issued on 11 September 2000 stating therein that it was eligible for protection of tenancy under the provisions of Section 15 of the M.R.C. Act and that therefore the tenancy could not be terminated. On 13 January 2001, Petitioner issued two more notices for 3 rd and 4th floor premises once again terminating the tenancy of MSEB contending that it was not entitled to protection under the M.R.C. Act. On 28 February 2001, MSEB sent a response reiterating that termination of its tenancy was erroneous.

6. In the above background, Petitioner-HSBC filed T.E. & R. Suit No. 346/366 of 2001 in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai inter-alia seeking eviction of MSEB. MSEB filed written statement contesting jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to try and entertain the suit by claiming protection of its tena