1 cra-699n152 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.699 OF 2009 AND CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2010 Tata Mills. .. Applicant ( in both the applications ) Vs Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. .. Respondent ( in both the applications ) -- Ms Ashwini Shete along with Shri Kuldeep Nikam i/by M/s. Khaitan & Jayakar for the Applicant. Shri J. Shekhar for Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22ND OCTOBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The Applicant is the Defendant and the Respondent is the original Plaintiff. Two separate suits were filed by the Respondent against the Revision Applicant under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882. The suits proceed on the footing that the Revision Applicant was not protected under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 1999” ). The 2 cra-699n152 suits were filed after serving a notice of termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ( hereinafter referred to as the said “Act of 1882” ). The decrees for possession were passed by the Trial Court which have been confirmed in appeals. The challenge in these Revision Applications is to the decrees passed by the Trial Court confirmed in the appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Applicant contended that as the relationship was not disputed, the burden was on the Respondent to prove that Section 3(1)(b) of the said Act of 1999 is applicable on the ground that the paid up share capital of the Applicant is more than one crore. He submitted that the Applicant Tata Mills is not at all a legal entity and Section 3(1)(b) of the said Act of 1999 will have no application. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in passing the decree. 4. I have considered the submissions. There is no dispute about the service of notice of determination of tenancy in accordance with Section 106 of the said Act of 1882. The Courts below have found that there was a specific averment made in the Plaint that in view of Section 3(1)(b) of the said Act of 1999, the Applicant had no protection of the said Act of 1999. The Courts below have rightly observed that the averments made in Paragraph 6 of the Plaint to that effect are admitted in the written statement. Moreover, the witness examined by the Applicant admitted that 3 cra-699n152 the Applicant is having paid up share capital of Rs.59.58 crore. Thus, exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the said Act of 1999 will apply and the Applicant will not be entitled to the protection of the provisions of the said Act of 1999. The tenancy of the Applicant has been determined by the legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The second contention that the applicant is not a legal entity has been raised for the first time in these Revision Applications which was admittedly not raised before both the Courts below. Hence, the same cannot be considered. Moreover, the said contention has not been specifically raised in the Written Statement. Therefore, no fault can be found with the decrees of eviction passed by the Courts below. Hence, the Civil Revision Applications are rejected. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant prays for grant of stay of execution of the decrees for a period of eight weeks from today. The said prayer is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the decrees for possession shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks from today. (A.S.OKA, J)