IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2007 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2007 Chandramal Mangatray Mulchandani & Anr. ..Petitioners (Org. Defendants) Versus Ichalkaranji Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. ..Respondent (Org. Plaintiff) Mr. R.S.Apte, Advocate i/b. Mr. Ashutosh Gole, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.M.Arjunwadkar, Advocate h/f Shri G.S.Godbole, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 29th April,2008. DATE: 29th April,2008. DATE: 29th April,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent is the original plaintiff and is a Co-operative Bank. The present Revision Applicant is a tenant in respect of shop No.3 situated on the ground floor of the building of the Bank. Admittedly, the Bank has a four-storeyed building. Ground floor has certain shops which were let out to different parties. The shop 2 No.3 was let out to the defendant. 3. In 1983, the plaintiff filed RCS No.212 of 1983 seeking possession of the premises on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the Bank for Banking business and for parking purposes. The trial Court dismissed the suit by the judgment dated 30.4.1994 observing that if the plaintiff-Bank really required some additional space, it could purchase in the vicinity. Against dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.252 of 1994, which was later numbered as Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 2005. The Appeal was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 5.4.2006. The learned appellate Court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff which is a Bank requires the premises for expansion of its banking business, particularly for ATM Centre on the ground floor and therefore requirement of the Bank is bonafide and reasonable. The appellate Court directed the defendant to hand over possession of the suit premises within 3 months from the date of the decree. That order is challenged in the present Revision Application by the defendant. 4. Mr. Apte, learned Counsel for the defendant-applicant vehemently contended that on 5.4.2006, the appeal of the Bank was allowed and on 8.4.2006, the Bank got possession of shop No.6 from 3 another tenant and thus the requirement of the Bank has been satisfied. He contends that this later development needs to be considered. In support of his argument, he placed reliance upon Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor &General Traders (1975) 1 SCC 770 Motor &General Traders (1975) 1 SCC 770 Motor &General Traders (1975) 1 SCC 770. Admittedly, there were seven shops on the ground floor and the Bank had filed suits against all the tenants as it required the ground floor premises for expansion of its banking business. Therefore, in my considered opinion, merely because after the appeal in the present case was decided, the Bank obtained possession of one of the shops, it cannot be said that the purpose of the Bank has been served and therefore the decree passed in favour of the Bank should be set aside. The building was constructed by the Bank for banking business and it appears that initially it required three floors and therefore the ground floor was let out to different persons. For expansion of the banking business if the Bank requires the ground floor also, it cannot be said that the requirement is not reasonable and bonafide. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the appellate Court. 5. In the result, the Revision Application stands dismissed. 6. At this stage, Mr. Apte, learned Counsel for 4 the applicant-defendnt makes a request that the decree may not be executed for a reasonable time to enable him to challenge this order. The decree shall not be executed for a period of 8 weeks from today, subject to the applicant filing within 2 weeks from this day, an undertaking that he shall not create any third party interest in the property. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)