-: 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 JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 118 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 118 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 118 OF 2009 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2009 IN C.R.A. NO. 118/ 2009 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. .. Applicant. (Org.Defnt.no.4.) V/s. Shri Suresh Khodidas Jaswa & Ors. .. Respondents. (Org.Plaintiffs) --- Mr.Narendra Walavalkar a/w. Hiten Venegaonkar i/by RMG Law Associates for the Applicant. Mr. Sanjay Jain with Mrs. Yogini D. Gada i/by M/s. Harakhchand & Co. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ---- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 17th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 17th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 17th APRIL, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Walavalkar, the learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is a tenants revision under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The suit premises is a piece of land bearing Survey No. 120, Hissa No.2, admeasuring 1200 sq.yards i.e. 1003 sq. meters situate at S.V.Road, -: 2 :- Kandivali (W), Mumbai -67. The applicant is running a petrol pump from the suit premises. It is not disputed that the suit premises were given on lease to the applicant by the respondents by the lease deed dated 9th October, 1970. There is also no dispute that this lease deed expired on 30th September, 1990. The applicant had an option to renew the lease deed for further period of 10 years. However, this option was not exercised by the applicant. 3. The respondents’ suit for possession of the suit premises came to be decreed by the Small Causes Court and this decree was confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court and therefore, the present civil revision application. 4. The applicant is a public sector undertaking having paid up capital of more than Rs. One crore and hence under section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act the suit premises let out to the applicant are exempted from applicability of the said Act. In addition to the above, the suit premises does not fall within the definition of "premises" given under subclause (10) of section 7 of the said Act as the suit premises was an open plot when it was leased to the petitioner in the year 1970. For this reason also the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is not applicable to -: 3 :- the present case. Since the lease period is already expired and no protection can be granted to the applicant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, in my considered view both the lower courts below have rightly granted decree in favour of the respondents, original plaintiffs. I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to enable me to interfere in my jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 6. Mr. Walavalkar, the learned senior counsel for the applicant, at this stage, seeks some time to vacate the suit premises. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if reasonable time is given to the applicant. In the background of the above submissions, I deem it proper to grant three months time to the applicant to vacate the suit premises subject to filing of the usual undertaking within a period of four weeks from today in the trial court. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....