Pleading rules and government company status defeated rent control exemption for eviction protection.

A party cannot claim statutory tenancy protection on a new factual basis that was neither pleaded nor proved below; a decree cannot be founded on a case outside the pleadings. The appellant's belated plea that vested tenancy rights belonged to the Central Government and that it acted only as an agent was therefore not available. On the merits, the appellant was treated as a government company, not the Government or a Government department, and statutory vesting did not convert it into the Central Government's agent. The exclusion under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act consequently applied against the appellant, and exemption from eviction protection was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could claim protection from eviction under Section 3(1)(a) or Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 on the basis that it was the Central Government or merely its agent, and whether such a plea could be entertained when it had not been properly pleaded or raised before the courts below.

Analysis: The appellant had not taken a specific plea in the written statement that the tenancy rights had vested in the Central Government and that the appellant was only an agent. No issue was framed on that basis and no evidence was led on it. A party cannot be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings, and a decree cannot be founded on a case outside the pleadings. A new factual plea requiring inquiry and proof cannot be raised for the first time at a later stage. On the merits also, the appellant was found to be a government company and not the Government or a Government department. Vesting under the special statute transferred the rights to the appellant itself, and such vesting did not make the appellant an agent of the Central Government. The exclusion in Section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for certain premises and entities, including public sector undertakings and covered companies, was therefore applicable against the appellant rather than in its favour.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to exemption under Section 3(1)(a) or Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and the plea of agency of the Central Government was not available.

Final Conclusion: The eviction decree was sustained, and the appellant's challenge failed, though time was granted to vacate the premises.

Ratio Decidendi: A new factual defence that is inconsistent with the pleadings cannot be raised for the first time in appeal or revision, and a government company receiving vested rights under a statute does not thereby become the Central Government or its agent for claiming statutory tenancy protection.

---