- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 118 OF 2006 The Cricket Club of India ... Applicant Vs. United Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. Birendra Saraf a/w Mr. Mohan G. Sahin i/b M/s. Gagrats, for applicant. Mr. V. Y. Sanglikar, for respondent No.1. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JUNE 23, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Respondent filed suit for declaration that it is a tenant of the applicant under a valid, subsisting and new monthly contract of tenancy with effect from 1-4-2005. Injunction was also claimed restraining the applicant from dispossessing the respondent. In this suit, the applicant filed an application under section 9-A of Civil Procedure Code for framing the preliminary issue. The said preliminary issue of jurisdiction was framed. The contention of the applicant was that the respondent is not protected in view of provisions of section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, - 2 - 1999 and therefore, suit is not maintainable. The learned trial Judge by the impugned order dated 20th March, 2006 answered issue of jurisdiction in favour of the respondent. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of – Smt. Leelabai Gajanan Pansare & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 5136 of 2008, decided on 20th August, 2008 and submitted that Maharashtra Rent Control Act is not applicable to the respondent Company. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the position that Maharashtra Rent Control Act is not applicable to the respondent Company, in view of the aforesaid judgment of Smt. Lilabai Pansare’s case (supra). However, he submits that in view of relationship of landlord and tenant, suit was rightly filed in Small Causes Court at Mumbai, under section 41 of Presidency Small Causes Court’s Act. 4. In the light of above submissions of learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the applicant submits that if the issue of jurisdiction is kept open, he will withdraw the revision, provided hearing of the suit is expedited. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection, if this course is adopted. Both the counsel for the parties submitted that pleadings are already completed. In view of above fact, following order is passed. - 3 - ORDER (i) Leave to withdraw the revision is granted. Revision is dismissed as withdrawn. (ii) Issue of jurisdiction is kept open and the same shall be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit. The trial Judge shall decide R.A.D. Suit No. 1771 of 2005, as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to mention that said suit shall be decided independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the impugned order or the present order. (iii) The learned counsel for the parties make statement that the parties to suit shall cooperate with the trial Judge for early disposal of the suit and unnecessary adjournments will not be asked. The statement is accepted. [ R. V. MORE, J.]