1982 (4) TMI 290 - SC - Indian Laws

Registrar's jurisdiction upheld under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act for society to be co-disputant; licensee not protected under Rent Act.

O.N. BHATNAGAR Versus SMT. RUKIBAI NARSINDAS & ORS.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Registrar's jurisdiction under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The society was ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.2. Locus standi of the society for transposition as a co-disputant.3. Whether the claim for ejectment is a 'dispute touching the business of the society' under Section 91(1) of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960:The primary question was whether the dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 1 regarding the flat should be adjudicated by the Registrar under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, or by the Court of Small Causes under Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The court held that the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee, not landlord and tenant. The appellant failed to prove his status as a tenant and thus could not invoke the protection of the Rent Act. The court emphasized that the non-obstante clause in Section 91(1) of the Act had an overriding effect over Section 28 of the Rent Act before the introduction of Sections 15A and 5(4A) in the Rent Act. Therefore, the Registrar had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.2. Locus standi of the society for transposition as a co-disputant:The appellant questioned the legality of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribunal's order allowing the society to be transposed as a co-disputant. The court noted that the appellant had previously challenged this order through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. Since the appellant did not contest the High Court's judgment, the Tribunal's order attained finality. The court found that the society, being a co-partnership type housing society, had a vital interest in ensuring that no unauthorized person occupied the flat. Thus, the society had the locus standi to be transposed as a co-disputant to bring the dispute within the purview of Section 91(1) of the Act.3. Whether the claim for ejectment is a 'dispute touching the business of the society' under Section 91(1) of the Act:The court examined whether the claim for ejectment fell within the meaning of 'dispute touching the business of the society' under Section 91(1) of the Act. It referred to the case of Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors., which defined 'business' in a narrower sense as the actual trading or commercial activity authorized by the society's bye-laws. The court distinguished the present case from the Sabharwal Brothers case, noting that the society had not sold the flat outright but had let it under Regulations in Form-A. The court concluded that the dispute over the flat's possession was indeed a 'dispute touching the business of the society' because it concerned the society's interest in ensuring compliance with its bye-laws and regulations regarding the occupation of flats by its members and nominal members.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, affirming the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, to adjudicate the dispute. The society had the locus standi to be transposed as a co-disputant, and the claim for ejectment was deemed a dispute touching the business of the society. The court emphasized that the appellant, being a licensee and not a tenant, did not have the protection of the Rent Act and was thus subject to the jurisdiction of the cooperative society's regulatory framework.