:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.583 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.583 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.583 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.405 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.405 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.405 OF 2007 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. ...Applicant. v. Smt. Shashiprabha Bajoria ...Respondent. Mr.Dipan Merchant Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.R.P.Gurjar i/by Juris Consultants , advs. for the Applicant. Mr.P.N.Karlekar, adv. for the Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.584 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.584 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.584 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.413 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.413 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.413 OF 2007 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. ...Applicant. v. Ashish Haralka ...Respondent. Mr.Dipan Merchant Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.R.P.Gurjar i/by Juris Consultants , advs. for the Applicant. Mr.P.N.Karlekar, adv. for the Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.585 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.585 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.585 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.411 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.411 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.411 OF 2007 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. ...Applicant. v. M/s.Annapurna Properties ...Respondent. Mr.Dipan Merchant Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.R.P.Gurjar i/by Juris Consultants , advs. for the Applicant. Mr.P.N.Karlekar, adv. for the Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.586 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.591 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.591 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.591 OF 2007 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. ...Applicant. v. Vijay Shankar Bajoria ...Respondent. :2: Mr.Dipan Merchant Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.R.P.Gurjar i/by Juris Consultants , advs. for the Applicant. Mr.P.N.Karlekar, adv. for the Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.587 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.587 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.587 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.409 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.409 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.409 OF 2007 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. ...Applicant. v. Smt.Chandanadevi Choudhary ...Respondent. Mr.Dipan Merchant Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.R.P.Gurjar i/by Juris Consultants , advs. for the Applicant. Mr.P.N.Karlekar, adv. for the Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.588 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.588 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.588 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2007 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. ...Applicant. v. Smt. Lalita Devi Jojodia ...Respondent. Mr.Dipan Merchant Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.R.P.Gurjar i/by Juris Consultants , advs. for the Applicant. Mr.P.N.Karlekar, adv. for the Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.589 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.589 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.589 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.407 OF 2007 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. ...Applicant. v. Binod Kumar Shroff & Anr. ...Respondent. Mr.Dipan Merchant Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.R.P.Gurjar i/by Juris Consultants , advs. for the Applicant. Mr.P.N.Karlekar, adv. for the Respondent. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.590 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.590 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.590 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.415 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.415 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.415 OF 2007 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. ...Applicant. v. Ravinder Singh Inder Singh Sehgal ...Respondent. :3: Mr.Dipan Merchant Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.R.P.Gurjar i/by Juris Consultants , advs. for the Applicant. Mr.J.S.Saluja, adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.591 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.591 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.591 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.401 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.401 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.401 OF 2007 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. ...Applicant. v. Smt. Krishna Devi Haralka ...Respondent. Mr.Dipan Merchant Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.R.P.Gurjar i/by Juris Consultants , advs. for the Applicant. Mr.P.N.Karlekar, adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 24th March, 2008. DATE: 24th March, 2008. DATE: 24th March, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The revision applicant in all these Revision Applications is the original tenant and the respondents are the landlords. Revision Applicant is the State Trading Corporation of India Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It had taken the suit premises from the respondents/landlords on rent for the purpose of its office. Premises in all these matters are situated on 6th floor of Maker Chambers, 4, the building situated at Nariman Point, Bombay. The respondents/landlords filed suits before the Small Causes Court at Bombay for eviction. The :4: suits were decreed by the Small Causes Court. Against the judgment of eviction and possession, the present applicants had preferred appeals, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. Being aggrieved by that, the original defendant has preferred the present revision applications. 3. The learned counsel for the revision applicants contended that the State Trading Corporation is the Government Company and, therefore, it is protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. On the last occasion, the learned counsel for the revision applicants referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed on 20th December, 2006 in the First Appeal No.1245 of 2004 Smt.Leelabai Gajanan First Appeal No.1245 of 2004 Smt.Leelabai Gajanan First Appeal No.1245 of 2004 Smt.Leelabai Gajanan Pansare & 3 Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Pansare & 3 Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Pansare & 3 Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others Limited and Others Limited and Others in which the Division Bench of this Court held that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is a Government Company and is protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the suit for eviction and possession can not be filed unless grounds for eviction are made out. It was pointed out that the said judgment has been challenged before the Supreme Court and the matter is likely to be listed in March for hearing. Today, the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords pointed out that in Leelabai Leelabai Leelabai Gajanan Pansare & 3 Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Gajanan Pansare & 3 Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Gajanan Pansare & 3 Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Ltd. & Others Ltd. & Others taking into consideration facts of that :5: case, the Division Bench had decided that it is a Government Company and is protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. However, in respect of State Trading Corporation in Writ Petition No.3857 of Writ Petition No.3857 of Writ Petition No.3857 of 2006, the State Trading Corporation of India Limited v. 2006, the State Trading Corporation of India Limited v. 2006, the State Trading Corporation of India Limited v. Mrs. Sadhna Rajiv Khosla , Mrs. Sadhna Rajiv Khosla , Mrs. Sadhna Rajiv Khosla , the Single Judge of this Court (Dr.D.Y.Chadrachud, J.) had observed that after the enforcement of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. is not protected as a result of the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) and the tenancy was validly terminated. As a result of this, the writ petition was dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the dismissal of the writ petition was challenged by the State Trading Corporation of India Limited in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s) 13027 of 2006. However, by order dated 28-8-2006, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition observing that Their Lordships did not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In view of this, it is clear that the learned Single Judge of this Court and then the Hon’ble Supreme Court also came to conclusion that the State Trading Corporation of India Limited is not protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The revision applicant, State Trading Corporation of India Limited is bound by these authorities. In view of this in my considered opinion, there is no reason to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court, which may be rendered :6: in the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment in Smt. Leelabai Gajanan Pansare v. The Oriental Smt. Leelabai Gajanan Pansare v. The Oriental Smt. Leelabai Gajanan Pansare v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors. Insurance Company Limited & Ors. Insurance Company Limited & Ors. 4. In view of the above circumstances, it is already held that the State Trading Corporation of India Limited is not protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. No other ground has been taken in these revision applications while challenging the concurrent findings of the facts of both the Courts below. Therefore, I find no substance in these revision applications. 5. In the result, Revision Applications stand rejected. 6. As the revision applications are rejected, civil applications do not survive and stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)