: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.65 OF 2009 M/s.Sterling Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ... Applicant V/s. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ... Respondent Mr.V.B. Naik i/b Desai & Diwanji for Applicant Mr.U.J. Makhija a/w. S.K Chari and Dipankar Das i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 4, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this civil revision application, the applicant has challenged the order passed by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai in L.E. & C. Suit No.182/211 of 1985 on 24th and 25th February, 2009 as well as the order of the appellate Court in Appeal No.288 of 2004, confirming the trial Court’s decision. 2. The tenancy of the applicant was terminated on 6.2.1985 by the respondent. According to the Respondent, the applicant had committed a breach of the terms of tenancy by selling a major portion of the building erected on the suit property to several third parties without its consent. A suit was filed by the respondent-port trust under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 for eviction of the applicant from the suit property. The suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction after the commencement of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999. On all the other : 2 : issues the Small Causes Court held that the respondent had established its case for evicting the applicant. 3. The respondent then preferred an appeal before the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. In the appeal, the findings of the trial Court on the issue of jurisdiction were reversed. The appellate Court held that the Small Causes Court did have jurisdiction to decide the controversy between the parties. 4. Mr.Naik, appearing for the applicant, submits that when the judgment and order of the trial Court was passed on 24th and 25th February 2004, two legislative changes had occurred, namely, the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (for short, `Bombay Rent Act’) was repealed and the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 was introduced onto the statute book w.e.f. 31.3.2000. As a result, he points out u/s 4 of the Bombay Rent Act, the premises belonging to a local authority were exempted from the provisions of the Act. He submits that under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the local authorities to which the Act does not apply are specifically stipulated in subsection 6 of Section 7 and the Bombay Port Trust is not one such authority mentioned in this provision. He submits therefore the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act would now be applicable to a tenant of the port trust and, therefore the Small Causes Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the suit filed u/s 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. 5. This submission of Mr.Naik is unsustainable in view of the provisions of section 58 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. U/s 58, three Acts including the Bombay Rent Act have been repealed. Under this section all suits and other : 3 : proceedings pending on the date of commencement of the Act before the Court shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Acts which include the Bombay Rent Act. All applications, suits and other proceedings under the repealed Act are saved in view of the provisions of subsection 2 of section 58. All such proceedings which are pending on the date of repeal before any Court are to continue as if the acts had not been repealed. Thus, the suit filed by the Port Trust in 1985 was expected to be decided under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act although it was decided in 2004. Section 59 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act clearly provides that wherever in the Act a reference is made to the suits, it would include proceedings under Chapter 7 of the Small Causes Court Act, 1882 including suits filed u/s 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. Thus, the submission of Mr.Naik that the Court had no jurisdiction on the aforesaid ground is unacceptable. 6. Mr.Naik then submits that in view of the provisions of section 15 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971, a Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding under the Bombay Rent Act or Maharashtra Rent Control Act. He submits that since the Public Premises Act is a central legislation it will have to be given precedence to the over the State Act i.e. the Maharashtra Rent Control legislation. 7. Mr.Makhija appearing for the Respondent points out the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shalan vs. Trustees of the Port of Bombay, 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 923. The specific contention raised by Mr.Naik has been answered by this Court by concluding that the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act were not retrospective. In the present case admittedly : 4 : the Estate Officer u/s 3 of the Public Premises Act was appointed by a notification issued after September 1989. Therefore there was no forum available to Respondent, other than the Small Causes Court for filing proceedings for evicting its tenants on terminating the tenancies in their favour. 8. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Jadeja Shivubha Dolubha v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad, 1977 GUJARAT LAW REPORTER Vol.XVIII 656 has held that the expression “to entertain” not only means “to receive and determine” but also means “to adjudicate upon”. This view of the Gujarat High Court is contrary to the view taqken by our Court in Shalan vs. Trustees of the Port of Bombay (supra). I am bound by the view of our Court in Shalan’s case (supra) and therefore, the submission of Mr.Naik that in view of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit since the Port Trust was included in section 2(e)(ii)(v) of the Public Premises Act cannot be accepted. 9. Both the Courts below have by concurrent findings of fact held that the Port Trust had validly terminated the tenancy of the applicant and that the applicant was not entitled to protection of either the Bombay Rent Act or the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence on record and concluded that the applicant was liable to be evicted since it had committed a breach of the terms and conditions of the tenancy. 10. In the circumstances, Civil revision application dismissed. No order as to costs.