1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3908 OF 2008 Branch Manager, Ratnagiri District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Bank Limited. ... Petitioner. V/s. Namdeo Ganpat Shetye. ... Respondent. Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar for the Petitioner. Mr. S.M. Kazi for the Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 19TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. :- Heard Mr. Bhatkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner. 2. It is contended that the decree for payment of rent is vitiated because the Court below has failed to consider that the Petitioner is a distinct entity and is not the same as the Original Defendant. Therefore, to seek any relief against the Petitioner either a fresh Suit was the only option or in the instant Suit, Notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, having not been issued against the Petitioner (newly added Defendant), this Suit could not have been decreed in any event. 2 3. This was the only issue on which this Court remanded the matter to Lower Appellate Court. The decree is passed in favour of the landlord against the Petitioner - Co-operative Society. The landlord feels that having entered into a contract of the Tenancy with the Co-operative Society, he is entitled to receive the agreed rent. His case is that merely because the Co-operative Society with whom there is an agreement gets a new name or merges with a new entity does not mean that the landlord is dis-entitled to the rent which was agreed to be paid from month to month. 4. Upon remand, the Lower Appellate Court has adverted to the necessary and relevant materials. As a matter of fact, it has concluded that the Notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was issued to the Original Defendant which was a society registered under this very Act. That Notice is duly served. After that Notice was served within the time prescribed by law, the subject Suit was filed. The Original Defendant did not raise any issue or dispute with regard to the issuance or validity of the notice. After the plaint was amended and the Petitioner was joined as a party Defendant, no dispute has been raised by amending the Written Statement that the Suit notice is invalid. That apart, the Lower Appellate Court has concluded that the decree of the Trial Court does not get vitiated because this is a case of an Amalgamation/Merger. That is clear from the receipts which have been issued in favour of the newly added 3 Defendants, on request. At no stage of the proceedings, the newly added Defendant raised any contention that on amalgamation/merger, assets and liabilities of the original bank were not taken over and therefore, they were not liable. Once such a plea was not raised, therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, the Petitioner - Defendant was rightly held to be precluded from now contending that it is not required to pay the outstanding rent/dues of the landlord. 5. Any larger issue or controversy need not be decided in this case. Once, the Courts below have concurred and held that Original Defendant No.1 has merged/being taken over by the Petitioner together with all assets and liabilities, therefore, the technical plea of want of notice under Section 164 cannot be raised, then, this conclusion requires no interference in my discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is unfortunate that the liability is of only Rs.71,000/- and odd. Such a small amount has not been paid by the Co-operative Bank and it finds it convenient to litigate for the same repeatedly. The Petition is dismissed. No costs. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.