1 cra465.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.465 OF 2010 The State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur ...Applicant vs. Jaiprakash Prabhudas Mehta & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Vimal Gupta for the applicant Ms Rekha Shukla for the respondent nos.1 to 4 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 12, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4. The respondents filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner-bank under section 41 of Presidency Small Causes Court Act,1882. The petitioner was a tenant in respect of the suit premises. Notice of termination of tenancy dated 16 th June 2000 was issued by the respondents to the petitioner. Thereafter, a suit for eviction was filed which proceeds on the footing that in view of section 3(1) (b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999 the petitioner has no protection. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. In appeal, the decree has been confirmed. 2 The first submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that all the legal representatives of the original landlord were not impleaded as parties to the suit and therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable. He submitted that on 8 th August 2009 and on 26 th July 2010, the 5 th respondent has written to the applicant- bank that the 5 th respondent is ready and willing execute 2 cra465.sxw a fresh lease in favour of the applicant. He submitted that in view of the said letters written by the 5 th respondent, the decree for possession cannot be sustained. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that the applicant is not protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999. There does not seem to be any dispute about service of notice of termination under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882. It is not in dispute that the respondents are the co-owners. Even assuming that some other co-owners are not made parties, the suit for eviction is still maintainable. 4 As far as offer given by the 5 th respondent is concerned, it is an offer given to execute a fresh lease after decree for possession is passed. Therefore, the said offer has nothing to do with the decree for possession. Hence, there is no merit in the revision application. 5 At this stage, the learned counsel for the revision applicant states that there are more than 5000 accounts held by the applicant in the branch in the suit premises and there are several safe deposit lockers. He submitted that longer time may be granted to the applicant to vacate the suit premises. The learned counsel for the 1 st to 4 th respondents opposes the prayer by pointing out that even contractual rent has not been paid. It is submitted that the applicant is liable to pay higher rent. 6 Considering the fact that the applicant is running a branch in the suit premises for last 60 years, time of 2 3 cra465.sxw years deserves to be granted to vacate the suit premises. In a city like Mumbai, the Bank will require some time to acquire another accommodation. 7 Hence I pass the following order : i) Revision application is rejected. ii)Notwithstanding the rejection of the revision application, the applicant shall not be dispossessed on the basis of the impugned Judgments and decrees till 31 st October 2012 subject to condition of the applicant-bank depositing with the trial court entire arrears of agreed rent due and payable as of today within a period of two months from today and subject to regularly paying or depositing the amount equivalent to agreed monthly rent till the end of October 2010. iii)It will be open for the respondents to withdraw the amounts deposited by the applicant with the trial court. iv)Till the applicant-bank hands over possession of the suit premises, the applicant-bank is restrained from creating any third party rights in respect of the suit premises and from parting with possession thereof. v) There will be no order as to costs. JUDGE