Leave-and-licence occupation in a housing society can fall within cooperative dispute jurisdiction despite a tenancy plea.

A plea of tenancy did not displace jurisdiction under section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act where the arrangement was a leave-and-licence, the earlier declaration suit had been dismissed, and the occupant could not invoke the Rent Act's protection or deemed tenancy. The cooperative society was entitled to be transposed as a co-disputant because it was directly concerned with enforcement of bye-laws and prevention of unauthorised occupation, and that order had attained finality. A claim for ejectment of a licensee inducted by a member of a tenant co-partnership housing society was held to be a dispute touching the business of the society and therefore fell within section 91(1).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the occupant's plea of tenancy displaced the jurisdiction under section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and attracted the exclusive forum under section 28(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; (ii) whether the cooperative society had locus to seek transposition as a co-disputant; and (iii) whether a claim for ejectment of a licensee inducted by a member of a tenant co-partnership housing society is a dispute touching the business of the society within section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

Issue (i): Whether the occupant's plea of tenancy displaced the jurisdiction under section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and attracted the exclusive forum under section 28(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Analysis: The agreement was treated as a leave and licence arrangement and not a lease. The earlier dismissal of the occupant's suit for declaration of tenancy operated as res judicata on the status issue. The protective scheme of the Rent Act applied only where a landlord-tenant relationship existed or where the statutory deeming provision under section 15A was satisfied. As the licence had been terminated long before 1 February 1973, the occupant could not claim deemed tenancy or the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes.

Conclusion: The plea of tenancy failed and the Rent Act did not oust jurisdiction under section 91(1).

Issue (ii): Whether the cooperative society had locus to seek transposition as a co-disputant.

Analysis: The society was directly concerned with enforcement of its bye-laws and with preventing unauthorised occupation of a flat forming part of its housing scheme. The order permitting transposition had already been challenged and had attained finality. The transposition was also viewed as necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute.

Conclusion: The society had locus to be transposed as a co-disputant and the challenge to transposition failed.

Issue (iii): Whether a claim for ejectment of a licensee inducted by a member of a tenant co-partnership housing society is a dispute touching the business of the society within section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

Analysis: The expression "business of the society" was applied in its narrower sense, namely the actual activity the society is authorised to carry on under its objects and bye-laws. A tenant co-partnership housing society exists to provide residential accommodation to its members and to ensure that flats remain in authorised occupation. When a member permits occupation under a licence in accordance with the bye-laws, the society's interest in regulating and restoring possession after termination of the licence is part of its business. The earlier decisions relied upon by the occupant were distinguished because they involved a different factual setting, including an outright sale of the flat or a relationship not governed by Form-A tenancy arrangements.

Conclusion: The ejectment claim was a dispute touching the business of the society and fell within section 91(1).

Final Conclusion: The proceedings before the cooperative authorities were competent, the occupant had no tenancy protection, and the challenge to the society's claim for possession failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a tenant co-partnership housing society governed by its bye-laws, a claim for possession against a licensee inducted by a member and a nominal member after revocation of the licence is a dispute touching the business of the society under section 91(1), unless the occupant can bring himself within the statutory protection of the Rent Act.

---