Advocates:
['SMT VANITA KAKAR', 'SMT SNEHAL MODI', '', 'V P FILED']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPLN.NO. 382 OF 2009

M/s. National Textile Corporation

(Maharashtra North) Limited.

...

Petitioners

Vs.

Premlata Bhaskar Khandke & Anr.

...

Respondents

Mr. Y.S.Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel i/b. Smt. Vanita Kakar,Advocate, for the

petitioners.

Smt. Snehal Modi, Advocate, for the respondents.

CORAM:

J.H.BHATIA, J.

DATE :

18^th March , 2010.

P.C.

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The respondents are the landlords of the suit premises and the

petitioner was a tenant. The respondents filed TE&R Suit n.214/288 of 2001 for

eviction and possession and also claimed arrears of rent. The suit was decreed.

The petitioner preferred Appeal No.252 of 2003 which also came to be dismissed.

3.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that as the

Advocate for the petitioner was not keeping well on the relevant date, he could not

2

appear and file affidavit in examination in chief of the defendants and the suit was

reserved for judgment and thereby no opportunity was given to effectively defend

the suit. The learned Senior Counsel contended that in the said affidavit, the

validity of the notice dated 29.12.2000 would be challenged. Assuming that such

an affidavit was filed, still the only point available would be the validity of the

notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act because

admittedly, after the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 protection of the Rent

Act is not available to the petitioner which is a registered company having capital

of more than Rs.1 crore. On perusal of the notice dated 29.12.2000, it appears that

besides claiming the arrears of rent and the permitted increases for about six years,

the notice clearly pointed out that the protection of the Maharashtra Rent Control

Act was not available to the petitioner and therefore by the said notice, the

petitioner was called upon to hand over vacant and peaceful posession of the

premises to the landlord by expiry of the next month from the date of receipt of

the said notice. Admittedly, the suit premises are the commercial premises and the

tenancy would be month to month. From the contents of the notice, it is clear that

a notice was served as per the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of

Property Act. No illegality can be found in the same.

4.

In view of the facts and circumstances, I find no illegality or

3

irregularity in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.

5.

In the result, Revision Application stands dismissed.

6.

At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks stay

to the execution of the decree for some time, but he is unable to make a statement

if the petitioner intends to vacate. In view of the circumstances, the request is

refused.

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)