1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 736 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 347 OF 2009 The Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. ... Applicant v/s Prem Aranha ... Respondent Mr.M.H.A.Sayyed for the applicant. Respondent present in person. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 5TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The civil revision application has been filed challenging concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below by which a decree for eviction has been passed against the applicant. 2. A suit was filed under Section 41 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the applicant by the 2 respondent. It was pleaded in the plaint that the applicant was no longer entitled to the protection of the Rent Act in view of the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Both the Courts below have upheld the plaintiff’s contention and decreed the suit. 3. The submission of the learned advocate for the applicant is that the Courts below have not considered the fact that the lease which was executed between the parties was by the plaintiff on the one hand and the Co-operative Society on the other hand. He submits that co-operative societies are not exempted from the purview of the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and, therefore, the judgments must be set aside. He further submits that, if these judgments are permitted to continue, the cooperative movement will be crushed as cooperative societies would then be at the mercy of the landlords and would not be able to avail of the protection of the Rent Act. 4. This submission of the learned advocate for the applicant is untenable. The lease was executed by the plaintiff/respondent with Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., a society registered under the Bombay Co- operative Societies Act and deemed to be registered as a Scheduled Bank. 3 5. In my opinion, therefore, it is the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., which admittedly is a scheduled bank which was the tenant of the premises. Section 3(1)(b) provides that the Act shall not apply to any premises let or sublet to banks. The expression “bank” has been explained to be any other Bank, including a scheduled bank as defined in Clause (e) of Section 2 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Undoubtedly, the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. is a scheduled bank and, therefore, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act would not apply to the premises let to such a bank. Apart from this, the learned advocate for the applicant was candid enough to state that the only business of the society is to run the bank. Therefore, in my opinion, the submission that it is the society which is the lessee and not the bank, is untenable. 6. The learned advocate also points out that the Trial Court has directed an enquiry into mesne profits from the date of termination of tenancy which is illegal and, therefore, the order is required to be set aside. 7. In my view, both the Courts below having concurrently concluded that the Act does not apply to the premises let to the applicant, need not be interfered. As regards mesne 4 profits, an enquiry is yet to commence since an application is yet to be made under Order 20 Rule 12. 8. Civil revision application stands dismissed along with the civil application. 9. The learned advocate seeks a stay of the decree for two years. He submits that, it is not possible to obtain alternate premises for the bank, immediately. 10. The applicant is given three months to vacate the suit premises on the usual undertaking being furnished to this Court by a responsible officer of the bank within two weeks from today. ..... 5