9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 2. Nature of the transaction: lease or license. 3. Classification and status of the society and its members. 4. Applicability of the Bombay Rent Act. 5. Interpretation and amendment of the society's by-laws. 6. Impact of previous judgments and legal precedents. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act: The primary contention was whether the Registrar had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The appellants argued that the transaction was a lease, thus falling under the Bombay Rent Act, which would bar the Registrar's jurisdiction. However, the court held that the dispute was indeed a matter touching the business of the society as it involved the occupation of a flat by a nominal member, which is within the purview of Section 91. The court referenced the decision in O.N. Bhatnagar's case, stating that the society's actions to remove unauthorized occupation align with its business objectives. 2. Nature of the Transaction: Lease or License: The appellants contended that the agreement was a lease disguised as a license. The court, however, found that the agreement dated January 1, 1964, was a genuine license, not a lease. The court emphasized that the terms of the agreement and the conduct of the parties indicated a license arrangement. The license was renewed periodically and was terminated by a notice on May 21, 1969, making the occupation unauthorized thereafter. 3. Classification and Status of the Society and its Members: The society was classified as a tenant co-partnership housing society, not a tenant ownership society. The court noted that the society's by-laws initially adopted Form 'B' by mistake, which was later corrected to Form 'A'. The disputant, Smt. Devibai Advani, was deemed a tenant co-partner member, not a tenant owner member. The court held that the society's classification as a tenant co-partnership society was validated by the Registrar's certificate and subsequent amendments to the by-laws. 4. Applicability of the Bombay Rent Act: The appellants argued that the Bombay Rent Act should apply, barring the Registrar's jurisdiction. However, the court reiterated that since the transaction was a license, not a lease, the Bombay Rent Act's provisions did not apply. The court cited the O.N. Bhatnagar case, which held that disputes involving nominal members and licenses fall under the Cooperative Societies Act, not the Rent Act. 5. Interpretation and Amendment of the Society's By-laws: The court examined the amendments to the society's by-laws, particularly the correction from Form 'B' to Form 'A'. The court found that the society's intention was always to operate as a tenant co-partnership society, and the erroneous adoption of Form 'B' was rectified in 1949 and 1974. The court dismissed the argument that the disputant's description of herself as an owner affected her status, affirming her as a tenant co-partner member. 6. Impact of Previous Judgments and Legal Precedents: The court reviewed several precedents, including Sabharwal Brothers v. Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani, Ramesh Himmatlal Shah v. Harsukh Jadhavji Joshi, and Dr. Manohar Ramchandra Sarfare v. The Konkan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The court distinguished these cases based on their facts and reaffirmed the principles laid down in O.N. Bhatnagar's case. The court concluded that the society was a tenant co-partnership society and the transaction was a license, not a lease. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings that the society was a tenant co-partnership society, the transaction was a license, and the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The appellants were granted six months to vacate the premises, subject to furnishing an undertaking.
|
