1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 341 OF 2009 The Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. ... Applicant v/s Majitha Nagar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.P.B.shah for the applicant. Mr.Vivek Walavalkar i/by Sameer R. Bhalekar for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 12TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The civil revision application has been preferred against the concurrent findings of fact of the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, evicting the applicant from the suit premises. The applicant, admittedly, is a Scheduled Bank and, therefore, the respondent filed a suit under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 since the Bank was no longer 2 protected under the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. Both the Courts below have found that, since the applicant is a Scheduled Bank, the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) are attracted and, therefore, the protection available under the Bombay Rent Act earlier was discontinued under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 2. The first submission of Mr.Shah for the Bank is that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Bank has a paid up share capital of Rs.1 crore so as to be evicted under Section 3(1)(b). The second submission is that the notice required to be served for terminating the tenancy has not been served on the principal place of business which must be considered as the registered office. 3. In my opinion, the interpretation of Section 3(1)(b) cannot be that the Bank is required to have a paid up share capital of Rs.1 crore before it can be evicted from the tenanted premises under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Section 3(1)(b) makes it very clear that any premises let or sublet to banks are exempted from the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The expression “bank” has been explained to mean, either the State Bank of India or its subsidiary banks of the State Bank of India corresponding 3 new bank established under Section 3 of the Banking Companies Act or any other bank being a scheduled bank as defined in clause (e) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Admittedly the applicant bank is a Scheduled Bank and would thus be covered by the Explanation to Section 3(1)(b). Therefore, this submission of Mr.Shah that the Bank must have a paid up share capital of Rs.1 crore is untenable. 4. As regards the second submission of Mr.Shah, the requirement under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is that the lease of immovable property can be terminated by giving a notice. That notice must be given in writing, signed by a person on behalf of the person giving it and either sent by Post to the party who is intended to be bound by it or be tendered or delivered personally to such party or to one of his family or servants at his residence, or affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. 5. In my opinion, the submission of Mr.Shah that notice must be served on the registered office, cannot be accepted. Section 14 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, on which he relies, does not in any manner stipulate that all notices must be sent to the registered office of the Society. Section 14 speaks about the Multi-State Co- 4 operative Society should have a principal place of business to which all notices and communications may be sent. However, this does not in any manner restrict the notice being sent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act only to the registered office. Admittedly, the notice has been sent to the regional office and it has not been claimed by the applicants. It was also sent to their branch offices in Mumbai. No oral evidence was led on behalf of the applicants to indicate that the notice had not been received by them. In these circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly held that the applicants were aware that the tenancy had been terminated. 6. Mr.Walawalkar points out the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v/s Santokh Singh (HUF), reported in (2008) 2 SCC 728, wherein the Supreme Court has categorically observed as follows:- “In any view of the matter, it is well settled that filing of an eviction suit under the general law itself is a notice to quit on the tenant. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that no notice to quit was necessary under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act in order to enable the respondent to get a decree of eviction against the appellant. This view has also been expressed in the decision of this Court in V.Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal.” 5 7. In view of this, civil revision application dismissed. 8. The learned advocate for the applicant Mr.Shah seeks a stay of the eviction order for a period of eight weeks. The eviction is stayed for a period of eight weeks from today, on the usual undertaking being furnished by an authorized officer of the Bank within two weeks from today. ..... 6