1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 38 OF 2010 (M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Mr. Safdar Hussain s/o Imdadali) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 29, 2010. Heard Shri De, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Shams, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner – tenant before this Court challenges the judgment dated 24.08.2009 delivered by District Judge – 9 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 550 of 2007 confirming the judgment and decree of his eviction dated 29.09.2007 delivered by Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 391 of 2005. Shri De, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two contentions. First contention is, because of language of Section 3 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, the exemption from its provisions is applicable only prospectively after the Act came into force and here as the tenancy is from last about 30 years, the said provision is not attracted. The second contention is, though by issuing notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, the tenancy was terminated with effect 2 from 31.07.2005, the rent tendered by the petitioners for tenancy months thereafter has been regularly accepted without any objection till date and hence in view of provisions of Section 113 of Transfer of Property Act, the notice of termination stands waived. The attention is invited to consideration of said aspect by lower appellate Court to point out that there is apparent non application of mind as said Court referred to Section 112 of Transfer of Property Act. Shri Shams, learned counsel for the respondent – landlord has pointed out that emphasize in Section 2(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is on premises and not on tenancy. He has further contended that by mere accepting of rent, the notice is not waived until and unless there is evidence on record to indicate that intention entertained by the landlord. He points out that the tenancy was terminated with effect from 31.07.2005 and suit itself has been filed on 05.08.2005. With the assistance of both learned counsel, I have perused the impugned judgments. The perusal of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act shows that it deals with premises and not with tenancy as such. The said section provides exemption and premises described in Section 3(1)(b) are exempted from application of Rent Control Act if share capital of tenant company is Rs. One crore or more. The contention that such share capital has to be Rs. one crore or more on the date of induction of such 3 company as tenant is contrary to scheme of that provision. The said provision regulates premises and exempts them from application in specified contingencies. It is not applicable to the tenancy as such and it is not granting any exemption to tenancy of tenants whose share capital at the relevant time was Rs. One crore or more. The provision is very clear and the moment share capital of tenant company exceeds Rs. One crore or more, the exemption provided for by the Legislature is attracted. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Similarly, the facts above show that the tenancy was terminated from 31.07.2005 and suit has been filed within a period of five days thereafter. The acceptance of rent by the landlord from month to month basis in any way do not mean that the notice of termination is waived. The question is of intention. No evidence of any such intention expressed by the landlord to waive notice has been pointed out to this Court and is not considered by any of the lower Courts. I, therefore, find second contention also misconceived. No case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.