1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.495 OF 2008 1. Bhargavrao Dhondo Joshi and Anr. ...Appellants. v. The Manager, The Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., A Scheduled Bank, M.G.Road, Nashik & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. M.M.Sathaye, adv. For the Appellants. Mr. Kishor Patil i/by P.N.Joshi, advs. For the Respondents. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 27th July , 2009 P.C. 1 Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: “1 Whether the First Appellate Court was right in dismissing the appeal on the ground that respondent/bank being not a scheduled bank, it is not exempted from the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and as a result, Civil Court had no jurisdiction ?” 2 With consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, appeal is immediately taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3 The present appellants are the original plaintiffs. They had filed Special Civil Suit No.77 of 2001 against the respondents for 2 eviction and possession. The suit was contested by the defendants and finally after hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Against the dismissal of the suit, plaintiffs preferred Civil Appeal No. 202 of 2006 before the District Court. However, the District Court dismissed the same only on the question of jurisdiction. According to the plaintiffs/appellants, the defendant no.1 is a ‘Scheduled Bank’ having a capital of more than Rs.1 crore and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, provisions of the Act shall not apply to the bank. As per the explanation for the purpose of Clause (b) of Section 3(1), expression ‘Bank’ means i) State Bank of India, ii) a subsidiary bank as defined in State Bank of India, Subsidiary Banks Act, iii) new bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970) or Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1980) or iv) any other bank being a ‘Scheduled Bank’ as defined in Clause (e) of Section 2 of the Reserve Bank of India Act. Admittedly, the defendant /respondent no.1 does not come under the first three clauses of the Explanation. According to the plaintiffs/appellants, respondent no.1 is the Scheduled Bank as defined under Clause (e) of Section 2 of the Reserve Bank of India Act and, therefore, protection given under the 3 Maharashtra Rent Control Act is not available to the defendant no.1. The learned District Court however, did not accept this contention on the ground that name of the defendant bank does not find place in the list of the Second Schedule under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and , therefore, respondent/bank can not be exempted from the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The First Appellate Court came to conclusion that in view of this legal position, suit could not have been filed before the Civil Court under the Transfer of Property Act and it was necessary to file the proceedings before the Competent Court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, as such, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4 The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants has produced the Second Schedule showing list of the scheduled banks updated upto 28th February, 2009 and this Schedule includes name of the defendant/bank, the Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nashik. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants makes a statement that as per the information received by him, defendant/bank is a ‘Scheduled Bank’ since 1995. He also produced Annual Report for the year 2007-08 published by the defendant/bank wherein defendant/bank has claimed that it is Multi State Scheduled Bank. Mr .Patil the learned counsel for 4 the respondents fairly conceded that the defendant is a Scheduled Bank within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the RBI Act. It appears that the First Appellate Court had only seen the Second Schedule given in the book on RBI Act, which appears to be old publication and infact, publisher of that book has given a note below the Schedule “Kindly check up with the latest Schedule published by the RBI from time to time”. It appears that no attempt was made either by the First Appellate Court or by the learned counsel for the parties to check up the latest schedule published by the RBI and, therefore, the First Appellate Court committed error in holding that the respondent/bank is not a ‘Scheduled Bank’. 5 Anyhow, in view of the fact that respondent/bank is a ‘Scheduled Bank’, it is exempted from the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and, therefore, suit for eviction under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act could be filed before the Civil Court. In view of this, the Civil Appeal No.202 of 2006 could not have been dismissed by the First Appellate Court on the ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction. It appears that while the trial Court dealt with all the issues on merits, the First Appellate Court did not consider the other points but disposed off the appeal only on the ground of 5 jurisdiction. 6 In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed in Civil Appeal No.202 of 2006 by the District Judge III, Nashik is hereby set aside and the appeal is remanded back to the District Court, Nashik to hear the appeal afresh on merits and dispose it off as per the law. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)