1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.263 OF 2010. Syndicate Bank, having its branch at lst floor, 158, Bhavani Peth, Jalgaon through its Branch Manager. ... Appellant. Versus Sandeep Hasmukhlal Shah and another ...Respondents. ... Mr.R.D.Deshpande, advocate for the appellant. Mr.G.V.Wani, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 13.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The present Respondents had filed suit 2 for eviction against the present appellant. The said suit came to be decreed by both the Courts. Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lease being a composite lease, the part of the premises could not have been a subject matter of eviction. For the said purpose he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Tirath Ram Gupta Vs. Gurubachan Singh and another" reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 770. He further submitted that if an eviction is ordered, the same would cause hardship to the appellant as the appellant would not be in a position to carry on its banking activities in the remaining part. Even the Civic amenities for whole of the property is in the part of the premises which is the subject matter for the present proceedings. On that count he submitted that the judgments of the Courts below are erroneous. 2. Per contra, Mr.G.V.Wani, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that this part of the property can be segregated from the remaining part, even the original owners have 3 purchased the properties by different sale deeds. The plaintiff has purchased the present suit property in a public auction from Debt Recovery Tribunal as the property can be segregated. There is no impediment for the Courts to grant the decree of eviction. For the said purpose, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Sk.Sattar Mohd.Choudhari Vs. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate" AIR 1997 Supreme Court 998. 3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel at length. The property which is the subject matter of the present proceedings has been purchased by the plaintiffs separately in an auction. Even the original owners who had given the said property on lease had purchased this part of the property separately by different sale deeds. The judgment relied by Mr.Deshpande, in case of "Tirath Ram Gupta Vs. Gurubachan Singh and another" supra dealt with the case where the lessee had inducted a sub-lessee and the possession was sought from the sub-lessee on the ground that the lessee has surrendered his lease U/s 111(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. So 4 the facts in the said case would not be squarely applicable in the present case. 4. Whereas, in case of "Sk.Sattar Mohd.Choudhari Vs. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate" referred supra, the Apex Court has considered the situation where after partition the individual owners to whom share of the part of the said property has devolved can claim right of eviction to the extent of their share. The Apex Court observed thus : "37. In view of the above discussion, it is obvious that the law with regard to the splitting of tenancy is not what the High Court has set out in the impugned judgment. As pointed out earlier, a co-sharer cannot initiate action for eviction of the tenant from the portion of the tenanted accommodation nor can he sue for his part of the rent. The tenancy cannot be split up either in estate or in rent or any other obligation by 5 unilateral act of one of the co- owners. If, however, all the co- owners or the co-lessors agree among themselves and split by partition the demised property by metes and bounds and come to have definite, positive and identifiable shares in that property, they become separate individual owners of each severed portion and can deal with that portion as also the tenant thereof as individual owner/lessor. The right of joint lessors contemplated by Section 109 comes to be possessed by each of them separately and independently. There is no right in the tenant to prevent the joint owners or co-lessors from partitioning the tenanted accommodation among themselves. Whether the premises which is in occupation of a tenant, shall be retained jointly by all the lessors or they would partition it among themselves, is the exclusive right of 6 the lessors to which no objection can be taken by the tenant, particularly where the tenant knew from the very beginning that the property was jointly owned by several persons and that even if he was being dealt with by only one of them on behalf of the whole body of the lessors, he cannot object to the transfer of any portion of the property in favour of a third person by one of the owners or to the partition of the property. It will, however, be open to the tenant to show that the partition was not bonafide and was a sham transaction to overcome the rigours of Rent Control laws which protected eviction of tenants except on specified grounds set out in the relevant statute." In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court, I do not find any error committed by the Courts below while passing the impugned judgments. In light of the same, no substantial 7 question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5. At this stage, Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant states that taking into account the fact that appellant is engaged in banking business, six (6) months time to vacate the premises be granted. Mr.Wani, learned counsel opposes this prayer and states that six months would be unreasonable time. 6. Taking into account the nature of the business being carried out by the appellant, I feel, six (6) months time to vacate the suit premises would be appropriate. The appellant shall vacate the suit premises on or before 10.3.2011, on furnishing an undertaking in the form of affidavit within two (2) weeks from today that they will pay the amount of rent/damages to the Respondents regularly. They shall not make any third party interest and shall deliver the 8 possession of the property on or before 10.3.2011. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa263.10