1974 (3) TMI 117 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the dispute between licensor and licensee.
3. Interpretation of previous judgments and their applicability.
4. Role of the co-operative housing society in the dispute.
5. Permissibility of adding or transposing parties in the dispute.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961:
The primary issue was whether the dispute between the licensor and the licensee fell within the ambit of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The Officer on Special Duty had initially decided that the dispute did fall within Section 91, which was contested by the licensee through this special civil application.

2. Validity of the dispute between licensor and licensee:
The licensee argued that the dispute did not touch the business of the Jhulelal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., and therefore, the jurisdiction lay with the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The licensor, on the other hand, sought recovery of vacant possession and arrears of compensation due to breaches of the leave and license agreement. The court examined the nature of the dispute and previous judgments to determine its validity under Section 91.

3. Interpretation of previous judgments and their applicability:
The court referred to the unreported decision in Kalavati Ramchand Malani v. Shankarrao, which postulated three requirements for a dispute to fall within Section 91. It was noted that none of these requirements were satisfied in the present case. The court also reviewed the Division Bench's decision in Kalavati's case, which summarized the ratio of Deccan Merchants' Co-operative Bank v. Dalichand in five propositions, emphasizing that disputes between landlord and tenant are outside the purview of Section 91.

4. Role of the co-operative housing society in the dispute:
The court noted that the co-operative housing society was not a co-disputant along with the licensor. The society had only issued a letter asking the licensor to vacate the flat, but it was not actively involved in the dispute. The court observed that for a dispute to fall under Section 91, the society must be effectively interested and involved in the transaction.

5. Permissibility of adding or transposing parties in the dispute:
The court discussed whether it would be permissible to add or transpose the co-operative housing society as a co-disputant. It concluded that this would only be permissible if all other requirements postulated by Kalavati's case were satisfied. The mere technical defect of the society not being a co-disputant could be rectified, but adding the society as a party merely to bring the dispute within Section 91 was not allowed.

Conclusion:
The court held that the dispute between the licensor and licensee did not fall within the purview of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The decision of the Officer on Special Duty was quashed, and the rule was made absolute in terms of prayer (b), with parties bearing their own costs. The court also clarified that its discussion should not affect the rights of a co-operative housing society to institute proceedings against a member or an occupant for contravening the society's regulations.