9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective application of Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973. 2. Applicability of society bye-laws in debarring a member. 3. Impact of property purchased in the name of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) on membership. 4. Determination of the nature (residential or commercial) of the property in question. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue I: Retrospective Application of Rule 25 The appellant contended that Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, applies to all members regardless of when they were enrolled. The respondent argued that at the time of his enrollment and property purchase, the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 governed cooperative societies in Delhi, which did not prohibit property ownership. Rule 25(1)(c)(i) disqualifies members owning a residential house or plot in Delhi. Rule 25(2) deems a member to have ceased membership from the date disqualification was incurred. The Court held that Rule 25 is not retrospective merely because it affects existing members based on past actions. The rule operates prospectively, disqualifying members from the date the rule came into force (April 2, 1973). Issue II: Applicability of Society Bye-laws Bye-law 8(vii) of the society, effective from 1962, disqualifies members who purchase a house or plot in their own or dependents' names. Bye-law 5(i)(e) states that a person is ineligible for membership if they or their dependents own a dwelling house or plot in Delhi. The Court concluded that the term "eligible to be a member" includes both becoming and continuing as a member. Therefore, the respondent was disqualified under bye-law 5(i)(e) for owning another property. Issue III: Property Purchased in the Name of HUF The respondent argued that the property was purchased in the name of HUF, not in his personal capacity. Rule 25(1)(c)(i) exempts co-sharers with a share less than 66.72 sq. meters. The respondent's share exceeded this limit. Additionally, the perpetual lease deed executed with the appellant society prohibited allotment to members owning property in Delhi, including family members. The Court held that ownership by HUF, consisting of respondent's family, falls within this prohibition. Issue IV: Nature of the Property The respondent claimed the property was used solely for a nursing home (commercial purpose). The appellant argued that the property was also used for residential purposes. The Court examined self-assessment property tax forms and an objection letter by the respondent, which indicated the property was used for residential and self-occupied purposes. The Court concluded that the property was used as a residential property, disqualifying the respondent under Rule 25 and society bye-laws. Conclusion: The Court found the arguments raised by the respondent without merit and allowed the appeal, reinstating the termination of the respondent's membership from the appellant society.
|
