: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.634 OF 2009 Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. ... Applicant V/s. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.A.V. Anturkar i/b S.B. Deshmukh for Applicant Mr.Vinayak Shete with Amol Joshi for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 18, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been preferred contending that the judgment of both the Courts below do not interpret the provisions of section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in the proper perspective. It is submitted that the applicant is covered by the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and therefore the judgments of the two Courts below must be set aside. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant- Corporation though a public limited company would fall within the latter part of section 3(1) (a) which makes the Act applicable to the premises let or given or licensed to the government or local authority or taken on behalf of the Government : 2 : on such basis by or in the name of latter’s behalf. It is submitted that the Corporation merely acts for the Government and that is obvious from the fact that the respondent landlord had issued a notice terminating the tenancy to the Secretary, Tourism Department u/s 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is submitted that had the respondent been aware of the fact was not the government or part of the government there would have been no necessity in issuing a notice u/s 80. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In my opinion, the interpretation sought to be placed on section 3(1)(a) by the leaned Counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted. Section 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) reads as under: 3(1). This Act shall not apply - (a) to any premises belonging to the Government or a local authority or apply as against the Government to any tenancy, licence or other like relationship created by a grant from or a licence given by the Government in respect of premises requisitioned or taken on lease or on licence by the Government, including any premises taken on behalf of the Government on the basis of tenancy or of licence or other like relatioinship by, or in the name of any officer subordinate to the Government authorised in this behalf; but it shall apply in respect of premises let, or given on licence, to the Government or a local authority or taken on behalf of the Government on such basis by, or in the name of, such officer; b) to any premises let or sub-let to banks, or any Public Sector Undertakings or any Corporation established by or under any Central or State Act, or foreign missions, international agencies, multinational companies, and private limited companies and public limited companies having a paid up share capital or rupees one crore or more. 4. The initial part of the provisions of section 3(1)(a) excludes the applicability of the Act to premises belonging to the government, etc. However, the latter part of the definition carves out an exception and provides that the Act would apply in respect of the premises let or given on licence to the Government or taken on behalf of the : 3 : Government or in the name of such officer. In the present case, there is no material on record to indicate that the premises were let to the government or that they had been taken as such in the name of any officer of the Government. 5. Turning to clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 3, it provides that where premises are let to a public limited company having a paid up share capital or rupees one crore or more the Act would not apply. The written statement filed by the Corporation does not in any manner deny the suggestion in the plaint that it is a public limited company. In fact, in the appeal memo, it has been mentioned that the Corporation is a government company under the provisions of section 617 of the Companies Act 1956. The Applicant has not led any evidence to establish that it continues to fall within the purview of the latter part of section 3(1)(a). In these circumstances, in my opinion, the exemption sought by the applicant that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act applies to it cannot be accepted. 6. Civil Revision Application is rejected. 7. On the application of Mr.Anturkar, appearing for the applicant, the decree shall not be executed for a period of four weeks from today subject to the usual undertaking to be furnished by the applicant within two weeks from today.