LexHINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOCIATES LTD. versus MRS. MAYA INDERSON ISRANI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.' HINDUSTAN THOMPSON ASSOCIATES LTD. v. MRS. MAY A INDERSON ISRANI & ORS. SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 [A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rents (Control) Act, 1947: Sections 5, 15A and 21-Cooperative Housing Society- Possession of flat obtained through member of Society who has commit- ted breach of bye laws-Society cJ:i. seek eviction under Section 91 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960-Rent Act inapplicable. Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: Section 91- Cooperative housing society-Cooperative Court/Tribunal has jurisdic- tion to order eviction from flat. A B c Respondent No. 2, a Co-operative Society allotted a flat to respon- D dent No. I. Respondent No. 2 sought recovery of possession of the flat on the ground that the appellant was inducted into the flat without the written consent of the Society. The appellant pleaded that it was con- tinuing in possession of the flat on the basis of the lease and licence agreement by payment of licence fee, and as such the dispute did not come within Section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act as it had E become as tenant under Section ISA of the Bombay Rent Act. The Cooperative Court after hearing all the parties made an award holding that the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court and that the appellant was occupying the flat in question as a trespasser after the licence in its favour was terminated and that there was no subsisting licence to occupy the flat by the appellant on !st February, F 1973 and so Section ISA of the Bombay Rent Act was not applicable. The appellant's appeal to the Appellate Authority and writ peti- tion to the High Court having been dismissed, the appellant appealed by special leave to this Court. Dismissing the Appeal, HELD: I. The appellant is an outsider who has been permitted to possess the suit premises as licencee of respondent No. 2 in contraven- tion of the Rules, bye-laws and regulations of the society .-The dispute G falls squarely within the provision of section 91 of the , Maharashtra H 29 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. A Cooperative Societies Act 1960 and the Cooperative Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute and not the Court under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. B M/s. A. V.R. & Co. & Ors. v. Fairfield Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.k. 84. 2. The decree will not be executed for a period of four months. The appellant will not transfer, assign or encumber the flat in any manner whatsoever, and hand-over peaceful possession of the flat on or before the expiry of the aforesaid period. He will go on paving the occupation charges equivalent to the amount he had been paying for C:: each month by the 7th of succeeding month. In default of compliance the decree shall become executable forthwith. [31E-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 567 of 1987. Ii) From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.1987 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 124/1987. B.R. Agarwala for the Appellant. Dr. L.M. Singhvi, P.K. Banerjee, S.K. Jain, L.A. Kriplani, Dr. E A.M. Singh vi and S. Bandopadhya for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.C. RAY, J. The member of society Mrs. Maya lnderson Israni who has been allotted the flat No. 62 on 6th floor of Nibhana Building F by the disputant No. 2, the Nibhana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and the society filed a dispute before the Judge Fifth Co- operative Court at Bombay for recovery of possession of the said flat from the opponents who are the appellants in this appeal and for mesne profits in respect of the flat alleging inter alia that the appellants were inducted in the flat without the written consent of the Society as a G licencee on the basis of a leave and licence agreement which was a renewed from time to time till some time in 1972 and on !st October 1972, the member, that is, the respondent No. 2 terminated the licence. and called upon the appellant to remove itself from the said flat. Thereafter an advocate' s Letter dated 1st October 1972 was sent by the respondent No. 2 to the appellant for vacating the flat. The appellant H having failed to comply with the request a dispute was filed by the .,. H.T. ASSOCIATES v. MRS. MAYA [RAY, J.] 31 member as well as the Co-operative Society for eviction of the appel- A lants from the flat, as well as for mesne profits. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.