Leave-and-licence occupation and cooperative society jurisdiction: revoked licence can support ejectment without rent control bar

A leave-and-licence arrangement, supported by the agreement form, the parties' conduct, society permission, and repeated fixed-term renewals, was treated as a licence rather than a lease; after termination by notice, continued occupation became unauthorised. The society was held to be a tenant co-partnership housing society on the basis of its bye-law amendments, registration records, and subsequent conduct. A dispute by the society seeking ejectment of a person occupying under a revoked licence by a nominal member was treated as a dispute touching the business of the society under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, and section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act did not bar cooperative jurisdiction because no landlord-tenant relationship existed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the flat was held under a lease or under a licence and, on that basis, whether the occupier's possession became wrongful after termination of the arrangement; (ii) whether the dispute fell within section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 or was barred by section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and whether the society was a tenant co-partnership society.

Issue (i): whether the flat was held under a lease or under a licence and, on that basis, whether the occupier's possession became wrongful after termination of the arrangement.

Analysis: The agreement between the parties was in the standard form of leave and licence, and the surrounding facts, the course of conduct of the parties, and the permission obtained from the society showed that the arrangement was intended to be a licence. The licensor was only competent, under the bye-laws, to create a licence with the society's permission and to induct the user as a nominal member. The evidence showed repeated renewals for fixed terms and termination by notice, after which continued occupation was unauthorised.

Conclusion: The arrangement was a licence and not a lease, and after termination the possession of the appellants was wrongful.

Issue (ii): whether the dispute fell within section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 or was barred by section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and whether the society was a tenant co-partnership society.

Analysis: The bye-law amendments, deletion of Form 'B', the approval of the Registrar, the certificate of registration, and the subsequent conduct of the society established that it was a tenant co-partnership housing society and not a mixed or tenant ownership society. A dispute by the society for ejectment of a person occupying under a revoked licence by a nominal member was held to be a dispute touching the business of the society. Where the parties did not stand in the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, section 28 of the Rent Act did not exclude the cooperative court's jurisdiction. The concurrent findings of the courts below on these matters were based on evidence and called for no interference.

Conclusion: The dispute was covered by section 91 of the Act and was not barred by section 28 of the Rent Act; the society was a tenant co-partnership society.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to eviction failed because the occupier's status was only that of a licensee under a tenant co-partnership housing society, and the cooperative authorities had jurisdiction to grant possession to the society and its member after revocation of the licence.

Ratio Decidendi: In a tenant co-partnership housing society, a claim for ejectment of a person occupying under a revoked licence by a nominal member is a dispute touching the business of the society under section 91, and where the parties are not in the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Rent Act does not bar the cooperative forum's jurisdiction.

---