LAWS(BOM)-2024-12-31

METAL BOX INDIA LTD. Vs. S.F. ENGINEER

Decided On December 03, 2024
METAL BOX INDIA LTD. Appellant
V/S
S.F. Engineer Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 16/1/2024 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing Appeal No. 231 of 2016 filed by the Revision Applicant and confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 28/3/2016 passed by the Small Causes Court decreeing T.E. and R. Suit No. 153/165 of 2001. The Small Causes Court, while decreeing the suit, has directed the Revision Applicant-Defendant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiffs, with further direction to conduct enquiry into mesne profits under the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code). Aggrieved by the concurrent decrees for eviction passed by the Trial and the Appellate Courts, Defendant-Revision Applicant has invoked revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 115 of the Code.

(2.) Two flats bearing Nos. 201 admeasuring 1850 sq. ft (carpet) and 204 admeasuring 1810 sq.ft (carpet) in aggregate admeasuring 3660 sq.ft. of carpet area alongwith two enclosed garages admeasuring 171.25 sq.ft situated in a building known as 'Marlow' at 62-B, PW Road, Worli, Mumbai-2 are the suit premises. Plaintiff-S. F. Engineer claims to be the owner in respect of the suit premises. Defendant No.1 was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises. Defendant No.1 is a public limited company, whose paid-up share capital as on the date of coming into force of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act) was above Rs.1.00 crore. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant No.2- Bhagwandas V. Bhawnani was unlawfully occupying Flat No.201 as illegal sub-tenant since 1989. In the above background, Plaintiff issued notice to Defendant No.1 on 19/12/2000 terminating its monthly tenancy and demanding compensation at the rate of Rs.1.00,50,000.00 per month. Defendant No.1 replied the notice on 22/12/2000 and refused to vacate the suit premises. Plaintiff instituted T. E. and R. Suit No.153/165 of 2001 before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises. The suit was premised on an assertion that the paid-up share capital of Defendant No.1 was above Rs.1.00 crore and that therefore it was not entitled to protect its tenancy under the provisions of Sec. 3(1)(b) of the M.R.C. Act. Defendant No.1 filed Written statement inter-alia contending that it was declared as sick industrial company on account of its reduced paid-up share capital and claimed that it was not an exempted entity under the provisions of Sec. 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. It appears that the suit was dismissed against Defendant No.2 by order dtd. 6/9/2007 passed in Interim Notice No. 152/2007. Accordingly, the Revision Applicant continued as sole contesting Defendant in the suit. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Small Causes Court framed following issues :

(3.) Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Small Causes Court held that the Defendant was not enjoying protection of MRC Act as on the date of filing of the suit and could not subsequently secure such protection after reduction of its paid-up share capital below Rs.1.00 crore. The Small Causes Court therefore held that the Defendant was not entitled to protection of its tenancy under the provisions of the MRC Act and proceeded to hold that Plaintiff validly terminated its license/tenancy in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Small Causes Court accordingly decreed the suit directing the Defendant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff with further direction to conduct an enquiry into mesne profits under the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code.