1990 (3) TMI 376 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Cooperative Court under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
2. Applicability of Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotels & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, to licensees in cooperative housing societies.
3. Relationship between the society and the licensee.
4. Legislative intent behind Section 15A of the Rent Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Cooperative Court under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960:
The core issue was whether the Cooperative Court had jurisdiction under Section 91(1) of the Societies Act to evict a licensee from a flat in a tenant-co-partnership society, despite the protection extended by Section 15A of the Rent Act. The Cooperative Court concluded that the relationship between the society and the licensee was not that of landlord and tenant, thus maintaining jurisdiction under Section 91(1). This was affirmed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court and the High Court, which cited precedents like O.N. Bhatnagar v. Rukibai Narsindas, emphasizing that protection under the Rent Act could not be claimed against the society.

2. Applicability of Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotels & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, to licensees in cooperative housing societies:
Section 15A of the Rent Act provides that licensees in occupation of premises on February 1, 1973, are deemed tenants and thus protected under the Rent Act. The appellant argued that he was a statutory tenant under Section 15A since he was in occupation on the specified date. The Cooperative Court acknowledged this but maintained that the society could still evict under Section 91(1) of the Societies Act, as the society was not a landlord under the Rent Act.

3. Relationship between the society and the licensee:
The appellant contended that the document of leave and licence created a lease, making the proceeding under Section 91(1) of the Societies Act incompetent. The Cooperative Court found the relationship to be that of licensor and licensee. The courts below held that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the society and the appellant, thus allowing the society to maintain eviction proceedings under Section 91(1).

4. Legislative intent behind Section 15A of the Rent Act:
The legislative intent behind Section 15A was to protect licensees from eviction and provide security of tenure due to the acute shortage of accommodation. The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 15A was introduced to curb exploitation and provide security to licensees, overriding other laws and contracts. The Court noted that the Rent Act's provisions should apply in matters covered by it, rather than the Societies Act, to harmonize the two statutes.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts, and directed that the claim application filed under Section 91(1) of the Societies Act be dismissed. The Court held that the appellant, as a protected tenant under Section 15A of the Rent Act, could not be evicted by the society under Section 91(1) of the Societies Act. The Court emphasized that legislative intent and the protective provisions of the Rent Act should prevail, ensuring that licensees in occupation on February 1, 1973, are deemed tenants and protected from eviction.