Bombay High Court
M/S. Tricolour vs Sangli Bank Limited (Deleted) ... on 4 July, 2023
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
1.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.346 OF 2022
M/S. TRICOLOUR )...APPLICANT
V/s.
SANGLI BANK LIMITED (deleted) )
ICICI BANK LIMITED )...RESPONDENT
Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate, Mr.Rohan Mahadik, Mr.Sunil
Lahane, Mr.Amit Kamble, Ms.Rachana Karad & Mr.Pramod Londhe i/b.
The Juris Partners, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.Vineet B. Naik, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Suraj Shah, Mr.Durgesh
Kulkarni, Ms.Nikita Vardhan and Mr.Vishal Tiwari i/b. Kanga and Co.,
Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 4th JULY 2023
P.C. :
1. This is a Revision Application challenging the order dated 22nd
April 2022 in Appeal No.162 of 2016 in RAE Suit No.432/737/2001.
Mr.Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Applicant,
would submit that that Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have
decreed the suit for eviction filed by the Respondent-Bank on the
avk 1/3
1.doc
ground of bonafide requirement as well as change of user. Learned
Senior Counsel would point out that though initially the suit came to be
filed by Sangli Bank, however, during the pendency of the said suit, due
to a merger between Sangli Bank and ICICI Bank, the suit was
continued by ICICI Bank without specifically pleading its bonafide
requirement. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that ICICI Bank
has only continued the suit filed by the Sangli Bank and not specifically
pleaded its own bonafide requirement, as is required under Section
16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Learned Senior
Counsel would also submit that, infact, there has been no change in
user as the lease deed did not specifically require that the premises be
used only for the purposes of a printing press; he would submit that, as
long as commercial user was permitted, there would be no case of
change of user and running an eatery outlet is also a commercial user.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the above issues merit
consideration and therefore the Civil Revision Application be admitted.
2. On the other hand, Mr.Vineet Naik, learned Senior Counsel for
the Respondent-Bank would rebut the submissions stating that by
virtue of the merger and as contained in the scheme, by operation of
law, all the rights and liabilities of the merged entity are assumed by
avk 2/3
1.doc
the transferee entity and ICICI Bank being the transferee entity, by
virtue of the scheme, has continued the suit and there would be no
question of demonstrating its own bonafide requirement as would have
happened in the case of a sale. With respect to change of user, learned
Senior Counsel would submit that there has been a change of user as
for 45 years the suit premises was used for running a printing press and
thereafter the user has changed to an eatery and that would be a
change of user. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the findings
of the two Courts below therefore need not be interfered with and the
Petition be dismissed.
3. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and with their able
assistance having perused the papers and proceedings, this Court is of
the view that interests of justice would be served if the Revision
Application is heard finally at the stage of admission.
4. List this matter on 3rd August 2023 for final disposal.
5. Learned Counsel are at liberty to submit brief propositions and
supporting judgments and to circulate the same in advance.
6. Statements made earlier to continue till the next date.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
avk 3/3
