: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.501 OF 2009 Berger Paints (India) Ltd. .. Applicants V/s. Jer Rusi Delwadawala & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Akshay Patil with Mr. Faisal Sayyed and Mr. Mayur Bhojwani i/b. M.K. Ambalal & Co. for the Applicants. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel, with Ms. Deepti Mistry i/b. Vaibhav Mehta & Associates for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 18 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The applicants have moved this Court against the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay, dated 26th July, 2005 in T.E. & R. Suit No.92/96 of 2002 filed by the respondents herein, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, by its order dated 26th June, 2009 passed in Appeal No.648 of 2005 preferred by the applicants herein. 2. The Suit has been decreed and both the Courts below have concurrently held that since the applicants no longer enjoyed the protection under : 2 : the Maharashtra Rent Control Act on termination of the lease, they could be evicted. 3. Undoubtedly, the applicants are a Company having paid-up share capital of more than Rs.1 Crore and, therefore, would not be entitled to protection available under the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the respondents, who are the daughters of the original lessor, had not produced any document on record to indicate that they were owners of the suit premises. It is submitted that although one of the plaintiffs, who had stepped into the witness box, had claimed that she had obtained Letters of Administration, a copy of the same was not produced on record. The learned Advocate for the applicants, therefore, submits that the notice of termination of the lease has not been issued in accordance with the provisions of Rule 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and is, therefore, bad in law. He submits that the applicants could not be evicted on the basis of such a notice. : 3 : 4. These submissions, in my opinion, are untenable. The applicants’ father, i.e. the original lessor, expired on 15th December, 1966. Thereafter the applicants paid rent to the respondents-plaintiffs’ mother, who expired on 29th February, 1988. Admittedly, the applicants have been paying rent to the respondents-plaintiffs from that date onwards. At no point of time, did the applicants challenge the respondents’ right to claim rent as landladies. In this view of the matter, both the Courts below have not committed any error which requires interference from this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. 5. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. 6. On the application made by the learned Advocate for the applicants, the decree shall not be executed for a period of six months from today, subject to the usual undertaking being furnished by the applicants and all adults in the family to this Court within a period of two weeks from today. .......