: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.582 OF 2009 The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. .. Applicant V/s. Arun Vishnu Abhyankar .. Respondent Mr. Durgaprasad S. Sabnis for the Applicant. Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b. Mr. P.N. Dabholkar for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 18 TH DECEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 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. : 2 : 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. 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- Bank, but is an enabling provision which facilitates the banking business. : 3 : 4. A similar view has been taken by two learned Single Judges of this Court in the case of Solapur Taluka Khadi Gramodyog Utpadak Sahakari Society vs. Dattatraya Shankarrao Kondewar & Ors., reported in 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 24, and in the case of District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. Heminath Balbhim Shinde, reported in 2003 (5) Bom.C.R. 841. 5. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. 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. 7. The rent which has been deposited by the applicant-Bank in the Small Causes Court may be withdrawn by the respondent. .......