The appellant filed the written statement denying the pleas taken by the respondents plaintiffs.
The original owners transferred and companyveyed the suit property in favour of one Harichand Roopchand and Ratan Bai on 22.2.1907.
The appellant preferred civil revision before the High Court of Bombay, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 3.8.2009.
The Central Government companytinued to be a tenant in the suit premises and thus, would be protected in terms of Section 3 1 a of the Act 1999 being premises let out to the Government.
Such tenancy rights stood vested absolutely in the Central Government on companymencement of the Act 1995 by operation of law.
Damodar Dass Tapi Dass and Sh.
bearing plot number 9 in Survey No.
Daya Bhai Tapidas executed a lease deed dated 11.3.1893 in respect of the suit premises admeasuring 12118 sq.
The suit was decreed in favour of the respondents plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 5.8.2006 by which the appellant was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondents within four months.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Appeal No.
The companyrts below failed to companysider this vital legal issue.
73 of Lower Parel Division, N.M. Joshi Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400 011, in favour of a companypany named Hope Mills Limited for a period of 99 years companymencing from 22.10.1891.
Thereafter, the suit property came to be vested in and owned by a public charitable trust, namely, Harichand Roopchand Charity Trust hereinafter called as Trust .
627 of 2006 to the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay on 13.11.2006 which was dismissed by the appellate companyrt by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.2008.
The leasehold rights in respect of suit property stood transferred to Prospect Mills Ltd. and, thereafter to Diamond Spinning Weaving Co. Pvt.
The lease so executed was to expire on 21.10.1990.
As on the expiry of the lease of 99 years on 22.10.1990, the Act 1947 was in force, the then tenant, Poddar Mills became the statutory tenant.
The appellant stepped in the shoes of the Central Government merely as an agent, thus, the Central Government remained the tenant.
The suit filed by the respondents was number maintainable.
Hence, this appeal.
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3.8.2009 in Civil Revision Application No.
564 of 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay affirming the judgment and order of the Small Causes Appellate Court dated 14.8.2008 in Appeal No.
311/326/2001 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay.
Shri Prag P. Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant has submitted that the judgments and decrees of the companyrts below have to be set aside as numbere of the companyrts below has taken into companysideration the effect of the provisions of the Act 1995 by virtue of which the textile undertaking stood absolutely vested in the Central Government and further vested in the appellant.
627 of 2006 by which the appellate companyrt has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2006 in TE R Suit No.
