CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. VRAJLAL KAPURCHAND GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Though controversy lies within a very narrow compass, elaborate arguments on various principles of law were highlighted, which shall be dealt with after noticing the factual scenario involved.

(3.) Factual background as highlighted by the appellant and accepted to be correct in material aspects by the respondents run as follows : Appellant, a nationalized bank, on the basis of a deed of lease executed on 8-4-1964 is a tenant under the respondents presently. The original landlord was respondents' predecessor-in-title. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'landlords') filed a suit under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (in short 'the Bombay Rents Act') in 1983 seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the landlord by order dated 8-4-1994. It was held that landlords had proved reasonable need and greater hardship would be caused to the landlords if prayer for eviction is not allowed. The said order was challenged in Appeal No. 208 of 1994 before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai by the present appellant, which was allowed. It was, inter alia, held that the hardship factor must be held against the landlords as the case was one where a purely business concern is pitted against the interest of the common man. It was noticed that the landlords had a flourishing business and had expanded his business and the present appellant being a nationalized bank existing for general public, and in that view of the matter the prayer for eviction was turned down. The landlords challenged the aforesaid order by filing a writ petition No. 5668 of 1995 before the Bombay High Court; which is pending. In the year 1999, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Maharashtra Rent Act') was enacted w.e.f. 31-3-2000. The said Act, according to the appellant-bank, took away protection of Bombay Rents Act to the institutions like banks and companies. However, provisions of Section 58 save pending proceedings under the said Act. On 10-4-2000 the landlords sent notice to the appellant-bank claiming termination of tenancy with reference to Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Act. The appellant-bank disputed the claim of the landlords. Subsequently a suit was filed in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai under the Maharashtra Rent Act bearing No. T.E. and R. Suit No. 91/120 of 2000. In the suit the landlords sought vacant possession of the suit premises and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per month.