Lease of land and superstructure rights: recovery barred without valid termination, while co-operative court jurisdiction remained available.

A lease deed that demises only land does not, by itself, transfer the superstructure to the lessor on termination; the lessee's right to remove or retain the structure depends on the lease terms and a valid termination. Here, because the alleged breach was found insufficient to terminate the lease, recovery of the lessee's premises by mandatory injunction could not be sustained. The dispute was nevertheless held to fall within Co-operative Court jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as it arose from alleged breach of society bye-laws governing the grant and enjoyment of the lease and therefore touched the society's business.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the superstructure constructed on the leased plot stood yielded to the lessor on termination of the lease so as to justify recovery of possession of the petitioner's premises; (ii) Whether the dispute for recovery of possession arising from breach of the society's bye-laws fell within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

Issue (i): Whether the superstructure constructed on the leased plot stood yielded to the lessor on termination of the lease so as to justify recovery of possession of the petitioner's premises.

Analysis: The lease deed, read as a whole, was held to demise only the plot of land and not the proposed structure as part of the original demise. Section 108(h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 recognises the lessee's right to remove structures, but a contract to the contrary may require the superstructure to pass to the lessor on termination. Clause 2(20) of the lease deed provided for delivery of the demised plot and premises with additions and improvements on termination. However, that contractual consequence could operate only if the lease had in fact been validly terminated. Since the finding below was that the alleged breach did not entitle the society to terminate the lease, the lessee's rights in the superstructure continued and the relief of mandatory injunction could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The superstructure did not stand yielded to the lessor on the footing adopted by the courts below, and recovery of the petitioner's premises was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the dispute for recovery of possession arising from breach of the society's bye-laws fell within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

Analysis: Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 confers jurisdiction where the dispute touches the constitution, management, or business of the society and the parties fall within the specified classes. The society's object was to lease, develop, and deal in land and houses, and the dispute arose from alleged breach of bye-laws governing the grant and enjoyment of the lease by a member. A claim by the society to recover possession after alleged breach and termination was therefore a dispute touching the business of the society. The co-operative forum was competent to decide the dispute.

Conclusion: The dispute was within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside because recovery of the petitioner's premises could not be ordered without a valid termination of the lease, though the co-operative forum had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a lease deed demises only land and the lessee's right in the superstructure is preserved under the lease until a valid termination, mandatory recovery of the superstructure cannot be ordered merely on an unaccepted breach finding; a dispute by a co-operative society to enforce its bye-laws and recover possession of property held through a member may nevertheless fall within Section 91 jurisdiction if it touches the society's business.

---