CRA. 912-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 912 OF 2010 Bata India Ltd. ...Applicant Vs. Bindiya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. ...Respondent *** Mr. P. S. Dani & Raj Baid, for the Applicant. Mr. R. A. Thorat & P. J. Thorat, for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : APRIL 27, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the respondent. The applicant is a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act. Admittedly, the authorized capital of the company is more than Rs. one Crore and therefore, it is exempted from the purview of the provisions of the Rent Act, under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Small Causes Court in a suit, filed by the respondent under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes CRA. 912-10 - 2 - Court Act. By the said judgment & order, the trial Court passed an order of eviction of the applicant herein which order was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that both the Courts below had completely ignored the fact that no resolution was passed by the Managing Committee of the Respondent Society before the notice of termination was issued. It is submitted that since the respondent is a Cooperative Housing Society, it has to take its decision in the Managing Committee or in the General Body Meeting. It is submitted that the only resolution on which reliance is placed is dated 31st August, 2001, and perusal of the said resolution clearly indicates that it is nowhere decided in the said resolution that notice of termination should be issued against the applicant herein. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the averments made in the plaint and the deposition of the plaintiff and the document which is produced on record in respect of the resolution dated 31-8-2001 in support of his submission. It is submitted that since the protection of the Bombay Rent Act is not available to the applicant in view of the provisions of Section 3(1)(b). It will have to be seen whether proper compliance has been made in issuing the notice of termination. It is further submitted that since the CRA. 912-10 - 3 - said protection which is otherwise available to tenants under the Bombay Rent Act is not available in this case. It is to be seen whether there is proper termination of tenancy. He submitted that both the Courts below have ignored this aspect. 3. It is not possible to accept this submission. In the first place, both the Courts below have arrived at a conclusion after going through the evidence on record that there is proper termination of tenancy. In the resolution which was passed on 31-8-2001, the Society had taken a decision to file proceeding of eviction against the Applicant herein. Though it is not specifically mentioned in the said resolution that notice of termination should be issued by the Society, the resolution specifically discloses the intention of the Society to start eviction proceedings against the applicant herein. Said decision to start eviction proceeding against the applicant, therefore, include all steps which are taken for the purpose of starting eviction proceedings, which includes notice to be issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is not possible, therefore, to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact, recorded by both the Courts below. Civil Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. CRA. 912-10 - 4 - 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent seeks the stay of the impugned judgment & decree in order to enable the applicant to challenge this order in the Apex Court. It is submitted that some time may be given since the Apex Court reopens after the vacation in the month of July. The impugned judgment & decree, therefore, shall not be executed till 15th August, 2011. The applicant shall, however, give undertaking in the usual form within a period of 2 weeks from today. [ V. M. KANADE J.]