Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pune Zilla Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank, a co-operative bank, challenged an order dated 28.7.2005 in Civil Appeal No. 632 of 2004 passed by the appellate court. The respondent landlord had filed Civil Suit No. 366 of 2003 in the Court of Small Causes at Pune under the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, relying on Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The respondent contended that the petitioner bank, having share capital of more than Rs. 1 crore, was not covered by the protection of the Rent Act due to the exemption under Section 3(1)(b). Consequently, the tenancy was governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and could be terminated under Section 106 thereof. The petitioner argued that the explanation to Section 3(1)(b) defines 'bank' only as categories (1) to (4), which do not include co-operative banks. The court examined the explanation and found that it specifically includes 'a banking company as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949', which by virtue of Section 5(c) of that Act includes co-operative banks. Additionally, the explanation includes 'any other financial institution' notified by the government. Since the petitioner was a co-operative bank with share capital over Rs. 1 crore, it fell within the exemption. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to protection under the Rent Act, and the tenancy was governed by the Transfer of Property Act. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Exemption - Section 3(1)(b) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Definition of 'Bank' - The petitioner, a co-operative bank with share capital exceeding Rs. 1 crore, claimed exemption from the Act. The court held that the explanation to Section 3(1)(b) defines 'bank' to include categories (1) to (4), which cover co-operative banks. Since the bank's share capital was over Rs. 1 crore, it fell within the exemption and was not entitled to protection under the Rent Act. The tenancy was governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and could be terminated under Section 106 thereof. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a co-operative bank with share capital exceeding Rs. 1 crore is exempted from the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 under Section 3(1)(b) read with its explanation.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 28.7.2005 in Civil Appeal No. 632 of 2004 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of exemption clause
- Section 3(1)(b) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act
- 1999
- definition of 'bank' includes co-operative banks
- share capital threshold
- applicability of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (11) 11
Writ Petition No. 6912 of 2005
Mr. P.S. Dani for the petitioner, Mr. R.S. Apte with Mr. M.S. Lagu for the respondent
Pune Zilla Madhyawarti Sah. Bank.
Smt. Urmila Chandrakant Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging appellate order in a civil suit for eviction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner bank sought to set aside the order dated 28.7.2005 in Civil Appeal No. 632 of 2004 and to be declared entitled to protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Filing Reason
The respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the petitioner bank, having share capital over Rs. 1 crore, was exempted from the Rent Act under Section 3(1)(b).
Previous Decisions
The trial court and appellate court held that the petitioner bank was not entitled to protection under the Rent Act.
Issues
Whether the petitioner co-operative bank is covered by the exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Whether the tenancy of the petitioner is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the explanation to Section 3(1)(b) defines 'bank' only as categories (1) to (4), which do not include co-operative banks.
Respondent argued that the petitioner bank, being a co-operative bank with share capital over Rs. 1 crore, falls within the exemption and is not protected by the Rent Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The explanation to Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 defines 'bank' to include a banking company as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which by virtue of Section 5(c) includes co-operative banks. Therefore, a co-operative bank with share capital exceeding Rs. 1 crore is exempted from the provisions of the Rent Act, and its tenancy is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Judgment Excerpts
The present petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 28.7.2005 in Civil Appeal No. 632 of 2004.
Admittedly, the share capital of the bank is more than Rs. One crore.
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 bank who are covered under the categories (1), (2), (3) and (4) thereof.
Procedural History
The respondent landlord filed Civil Suit No. 366 of 2003 in the Court of Small Causes at Pune. The trial court decided against the petitioner. The petitioner appealed in Civil Appeal No. 632 of 2004, which was dismissed on 28.7.2005. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: 3(1)(b)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 106
- Banking Regulation Act, 1949: 5(c)
- Presidency Small Causes Court Act:
