LexA.V.R & CO. & ORS. versus FAIRFIELD COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B A.V.R. & CO. & ORS. v. FAIRFIELD COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 [A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960-Section 91- Whether dispute ft.led by Fairfield, Co-operative Housing Society seeking possession flat from licencees fell within section 91-Whether C section 9 I is ultra vires of the Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Respondent No. 2, a member of the Fairfield Co-operative Hous- ing Society, a Tenant Co-partnership Housing Society-respondent No. I-permitted appellant No. I to possess and occupy as licencee the flat allotted to the respondent No. 2 as a member of the Society, without ID the consent of the Society and in breach of the bye-laws and Regulations of the Society. The Society filed a dispute against the respondent No. 2, joining appellants Nos. I and 2, the two occupants of the flat as opposite parties, seeking possession of the flat from all the opponents. The appel- lants Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statements contesting the dispute, stating . that they were in exclusive occupation of the flat as licencees. E The Judge, Co-operative Court made an award in favour of the Society, holding that the respondent No. 2 was a member of the disput- ant Society and the appellants Nos. 1 & 2 were not the members but were claiming through respondent No. 2 and that the dispute, touching the business, management and constitution of the Society, fell within F Sec. 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and that the respondent No. 2 committed breach tjf the Bye-laws, Rules and Regula- tions of the Society. On appeal by the appellants Nos. I and 2 against the award, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court held that the claim <;:; for-possession was not affected by the Bye-laws and the appellants were not entitled to the protection of the Bombay Rent Act. The appellants tiled a writ petition before the High Court which dismissed the same. Dismissing the appeal, the Court, H HELD: The claim of the appellants as deemed tenants on the 84 A.V.R. & CO. v. HOUSING SOCIETY 85 basis of an agreement of leave and licence was untenable. This agree- ' ment had been executed by the licenser respondent No. 2 in favour of Appellant No. I for II months. It was not renewed. [SSE, G-H) The appellants 1 & 2 were licensees and not statutory tenants. They were outsiders permitted to possess the suit premises as licencees of respondent No. 2 in contravention of the Rules, bye-laws and regula- tions of the Society. The dispute falls squarely within the provision of Section 91(1) of the Act and the Co-operative Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute and not the Court under the Bombay Rent Act. [89E-F] There was no factual basis of the allegation of collusion between -respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and no merit in the contention. The Society filed the dispute application both against its member and the appellants who were the occupants of the flat to get possession of the flat as the appellants were trespassers put in possession without the consent of the Society and in breach of its bye-laws, rules and Regulations. [920-EJ Section 9I(b) is not ultra vires of Articles I4 and I9 of the Constitution. [92E) D.H. Maniar &. Ors. v. Waman Laxman Kudav, [I977) I SCR 403; O.P. Bhatnagar v. Smt. Rukibai Narsindas & Ors., [1982) 3 SCR A B c D 681 at 696, referred to. E Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors., [I969) I SCR 887; Sabharwal Brothers & Anr. v. Smt. Guna Amrit Thandani of Bombay, [I973) I SCR 53 and I.R.Hingo· rani v. P.K. Shah & Ors., AIR I972 SC 2161, distinguished. C.P. Khanna v. V.K. Kalghatgi & Ors., AIR I970 Bombay 201 and Rasiklal Patel & Ors. v. Kailasgauri Raman/al Mehta & Ors., [1971) Vol. XII G.L.R. 355, approved · · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal~o. 472 F ~~ G From the Judgment and Order dated 9.8.1983 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1907 of 1983. V.M. Tarkunde, S.K. Dholakia, Y.R. Naik, K. Ra]endra Choudhary, K. Shivraj Choudhary, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. H Bhasme for the Appellants. A 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. U.R. Lalit. Girish Chandra and M.N. Shroff for the Respon- dents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.C. RAY, J. This Appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th August 1983 passed in Writ Petition N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.