( 1 ) THE present petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 28-07- 2005 in Civil Appeal No. 632 of 2004. Some of the material facts of the present case in brief are as under:

( 2 ) THE respondent landlord has filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Pune being Civil Suit No. 366 of 2003 under the provision of Provincial Small Causes Court Act by relying upon the provision of Sec. 3 (1) (b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondent has filed the reply and raised the contention that they are not covered by the provision of Sec. 3 (1) (b) of the Maharashtra rent Control Act, 1999. The petitioner herein is a Co-operative Bank known as Pune Zilla madhyawarti Sahakari Bank. Admittedly, the share capital of the bank is more than Rs. One crore. Respondent has filed the suit on the basis that the petitioner being a bank and having share capital of more than Rs. One crore is not covered by the protection conferred under the maharashtra Rent Control Act by virtue of exemption provided under Sec. 3 (1) (b) of the act. It is the case of the respondent that, in absence of protection, the tenancy of petitioner bank is governed by Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, can be terminated under sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The defence raised by the petitioner before the trial Court as well as before me is that the provision of Sec. 3 (1) (b) of the Maharashtra rent Control Act is not applicable because under the explanation to Sec. 3 (1) (b) it has been specifically provided that the word "bank" means only those banks who are covered under the categories (1), (2), (3) and (4) thereof. The provision of Sec. 3 (1) (b) alongwith explanation thereof reads as under:"sec. 3 (1) (b): to any premises let or sub- let to banks, or any Public Sector undertakings or any corporation established by or under any Central or State act, or foreign missions, international agencies, multinational companies, and private limited companies and public limited companies having a paid up share capital of rupees one crore or more. Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause the expression "bank" means, (i) the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955; (ii)a subsidiary bank as defined in the State bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959; (iii) A corresponding new bank constituted under Section 3 of the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 or under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) 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, 1934. "the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the provision of Sec. 3 (1) (b) and particularly explanation thereto, has contended that the petitioner is not a bank falling under any of the four categories specified in the explanation thereto. He has contended that the petitioner bank is a co-operative bank and it is neither a State Bank of India nor a subsidiary as defined under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 or new bank constituted under Sec. 3 of the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 or under Sec. 3 of the banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980. It has been submitted that the petitioner bank is not even the scheduled bank as defined in Clause (e) of sec. 2 of the Reserve Bank of India Act. It has been thus contended that the petitioner being not falling in the category of exemption under sec. 3 (1) (b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control act, the petitioner is entitled to the protection of the Rent Control Act as they are admittedly the tenant of the respondent herein. It has been further contended that in the light of the aforesaid, the suit filed by the respondents under Sec. 3 (1) (b) of the Maharashtra Rent control Act, 1999 is not maintainable and the petitioner is entitled to the protection as conferred un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document