The Maharasthtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited v. Arun Vishnu Abhyankar

Bombay HC18 Dec 2009CRA/582/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the mandatory notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was not required as acquiring tenanted premises was incidental to banking. Eviction decree confirmed, but Bank permitted to stay for one year pending Board Resolution.

What did the court decide?

Bank permitted to continue in the suit premises for a period of one year from the date of the order.

The Maharasthtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs Arun… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.582 OF 2009

¶4

The Maharashtra State Co-op.
Bank Ltd... Applicant

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

Arun Vishnu Abhyankar.. Respondent

¶7

Mr. Durgaprasad S. Sabnis for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b. Mr. P.N. Dabholkar
for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 18TH DECEMBER, 2009.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1.The applicant-Bank has moved this Court against
the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court,
which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court.
The respondent filed a Suit for eviction of the
applicant-Bank from the suit premises after
terminating the tenancy. The Suit was filed
contending that the applicant-Bank no longer had
the protection of the rent legislation in view of
the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Both the Courts
below have held that the applicant-Bank is liable
to be evicted.

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

2.The only contention raised in the present case
is that the respondent had not given notice in
accordance with Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act to the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, prior to filing the Suit. It
is contended that the acquisition of tenancy
touches the bye-laws and the business of the
Society and therefore the statutory notice was
mandatory.

¶14

3.This submission cannot be accepted since
obviously the tenanted premises have been acquired
only as an incidental measure in order to carry out
banking operation. Reliance is placed by the
learned Advocate for the applicant on bye-law 4(1)
to indicate that the applicant-Bank was carrying
out business of the acquisition, construction,
maintenance and alteration of any building or works
necessary or convenient for the purpose of the
Bank. This bye-law would not, in my opinion, amount
to business being carried out by the applicant-

¶15

Bank, but is an enabling provision which
facilitates the banking business.

¶16

: 3 :

¶17

4.A similar view has been taken by two learned
Single Judges of this Court in the case ofSolapur
Taluka Khadi Gramodyog Utpadak Sahakari Society vs.
Dattatraya Shankarrao Kondewar & Ors., reported in
2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 24, and in the case ofDistrict
Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. Heminath
Balbhim Shinde, reported in 2003 (5) Bom.C.R. 841.

¶18

5. The Civil Revision Application is rejected.

¶19

6.However, on the application made by the learned
Advocate for the applicant-Bank, the Bank is
permitted to continue in the suit premises for a
period of one year from today. The applicant-Bank
must submit an undertaking in the usual terms
through a responsible officer of the applicant-Bank
to this Court, supported by a Board Resolution,
within a period of four weeks from today.

¶20

7.The rent which has been deposited by the
applicant-Bank in the Small Causes Court may be
withdrawn by the respondent.

The Maharasthtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited v. Arun Vishnu Abhyankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Maharasthtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited v. Arun Vishnu Abhyankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaso Dattoba Chavan and Ors. Vs Vijaysinh Dadosa Patil and Ors.

Jagannath Shantaram Gurav Vs Haribhau Rama Shelke

Dr. Ms. Mira Hasanand Bakhru Vs Mr. Chandru Girdharlal Bijlani

Vithal Ramchandra Otawkar and Ors. Vs Raj Vatsa and Anr.

Ram Narayan Singh Vs Aziz Mohammed Patanwala and Ors.

Suhas Dattatray Shirdhankar Vs Radha Kishan Asrani and Anr.