1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2008 Sau. Suman K. Shah ... Petitioner (Org. defendant) Vs. Smt. Hausabai Narayan Landge & Ors. Respondents Mr. R.R.Mahagaonkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 21st January, 2008. DATE : 21st January, 2008. DATE : 21st January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petitioner is the original defendant. The plaintiffs filed the suit before the Small Cause Court, Pune, contending that the defendant had taken open piece of land admeasuring 18x22 ft. bearing CTS No.53 at village Bhosari, Pune, on rent from the plaintiffs. She was in arrears of rent and, therefore, the plaintiffs 2 issued a notice on 1.4.2003 to the defendant terminating the tenancy. The said notice was served on the defendant on 21.4.2003. The defendant did not vacate the land within 15 days from the service of the notice. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit on 16.6.2003. 3. According to the defendant, she had taken a shed over the said land as a tenant and, therefore, it amounts to premises within the meaning of Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999 and the suit is not tenable because the tenancy is protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It as also contended that in view of this, the termination of the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not valid. 4. Learned trial Court framed the issues and after hearing of the evidence led by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit property is not covered by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act as it was an open land and not the premises. It was also held that the tenancy has been validly terminated by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the result, the suit was decreed.The defendant preferred Civil Appeal No.447 of 2006 which came to be dismissed by the Adhoc District Judge-1, Pune. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings on both the issues. 3 5. The word ‘premises’ as defined under Section 7(9) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 does not include the open land given on lease or licence. Therefore, the main question was whether in the present case, open land was given on rent or it was a shed given on rent. While according to the plaintiff,it was an open land, according to the defendant, it was the shed on that land. The learned appellate Court noted that the present defendant had previously filed Regular Civil Suit No.1398 of 2002 against Chandrakant, who is the plaintiff No.2 in the present suit, and in that suit the defendant had referred the suit property as open plot and in the year 1978, in the application for temporary injunction, she had referred the suit property was open plot. In view of these admissions made by the defendant in the suit filed by her earlier and the oral evidence led before the Court in the present suit, the Court came to the conclusion that it was an open land and therefore, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is not applicable. 6. There is no dispute that tenancy was monthly tenancy and in view of Section 106(1) of the T.P. Act, it is terminable by 15 days’ notice. The period of notice shall commence from the date of receipt of the notice as provided under Section 106(2) of the T.P. Act 4 as amended by the Amendment Act 3 of 2003 which came into force on 1.1.2003. Therefore, 15 days’ period has to be counted from the date of notice. Before the said amendment, notice was required to expire by the end of the month of tenancy, but that provision has been changed by way of amendment. As pointed out earlier, in the present case, the notice was issued only 1.4.2003. and it was actually served on 21.4.2003. That notice was required to be complied with within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. That period expired on 6.5.2003. As the defendant did not comply with the said notice the suit was filed on 16.6.2003. As such the termination is valid and no exception could be taken about the legality of the notice. In view of the facts and legal position noted above, I find no substance in the present Application. 7. In the result, the Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)