Co-operative society jurisdiction yields to Rent Act in landlord-tenant possession disputes over premises owned by a bank.

A landlord-tenant dispute over possession of premises owned by a co-operative bank was held not to be a dispute "touching the business of the society" under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, because that phrase refers to the society's actual trading or commercial activity, not its general affairs. The tenant was also not a person claiming through a member, as the tenancy did not arise from a transaction entered into by the member in that capacity. The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was treated as the special statute governing possession disputes, so its exclusive jurisdiction under Section 28 prevailed and Registrar jurisdiction was excluded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a dispute between a co-operative bank and a tenant in premises acquired by the bank was a dispute touching the business of the society under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and between a society and a person claiming through a member. (ii) Whether the dispute was nevertheless required to be tried under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, thereby excluding the Registrar's jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a dispute between a co-operative bank and a tenant in premises acquired by the bank was a dispute touching the business of the society under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and between a society and a person claiming through a member.

Analysis: The expression "touching the business of a society" was held to mean the actual trading or commercial activity of the society and not its general affairs. A dispute concerning recovery of possession from a tenant of premises owned by a co-operative bank, which was not a society formed for constructing and letting out houses, did not fall within that concept. The Court further held that a person can be said to claim through a member only where the claim arises from a transaction entered into by the member as a member; where the original owner had leased the premises as mortgagor in possession and not in his capacity as a member, the tenancy claim did not answer that description.

Conclusion: The dispute did not fall within Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on either footing.

Issue (ii): Whether the dispute was nevertheless required to be tried under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, thereby excluding the Registrar's jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Rent Act was treated as a special welfare statute conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes in landlord-tenant matters relating to possession. The Court held that the two enactments should be harmonised by giving effect to the Rent Act in disputes covered by it, since the tenant protections and remedies under that Act would otherwise be defeated if the matter were relegated to co-operative arbitration. The non obstante language in the co-operative law did not override the special jurisdiction created by the Rent Act for eviction disputes.

Conclusion: Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 governed the dispute and the Registrar's jurisdiction was excluded.

Final Conclusion: The reference to the Registrar was without jurisdiction, and the appeal against the writ decision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A landlord-tenant dispute concerning possession of premises held by a co-operative society is not a dispute touching the business of the society under Section 91, and where the Rent Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes, that special jurisdiction prevails over co-operative arbitration.

---