M/S. ANITA ENTERPRISES AND ANR. versus BELFER COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 14-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
MIS. ANITA ENTERPRISES AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
BELFER COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 14, 2007 
B 
[B.N. AGRA WAL AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.) 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, c 
1947; Ss. 5(11), 15, 15(A) and 28/Tenancy Regulations 4 and 241 
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 1960; Ss. 2, 22, 23, 29, 31, 
41, 91, 93and143/Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961; 
Rr.8, 10 & 28/Bye-Laws of the Society; Bye-Laws 2, 7, 12 & 64: 
Eviction-Member-allottee of a flat from a Co-operative D 
Housing Society inducting tenants-Filing of declaratory suits by 
tenants-Dismissed by Small Causes Court-Appeal allowed by 
appellate Bench of Small Causes Court holding that appellants were 
inducted as tenants in the premises in question-Society raising a 
di~pute before Co-operative Court praying/or eviction of tenants and E 
for handing over possession to allottee of the flat-Co-operative 
Court making an award in favour of the Society by passing an order 
of eviction against the tenants-Challenged by tenants-Order of 
appellate bench of Small Causes Court challenged by allottee-Single 
Judge of High Court allowed writ petition filed by the allottee F 
) 
dismissing the writ petitionfiled by the tenants-Affirmed by Division 
Bench vf High Court-Held: Although allottee not de ju re owner of 
flat, infael. he enjoys all rights which an owner enjoys including right 
to transfer the property subject to fit!jillment of certain conditions-
Since allot tee is not tenant, he could not create sub-tenancy-He may G 
not be a owner in the eye of fail' but could still be a landlord within 
) 
the meaning of Rent Act-Since creation of tenancy is infi·action of 
mandat01y provisions uls. 29(2) of the Societies Act, transaction 
between allottee and tenant in question voidable-Thus, relationship 
I 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A of landlord and tenant not duly created-Hence, appellants cannot 
claim protection under the Rent Act and petition u/s.91 of the Societies 
Act maintainable-The question regarding legality of creation of 
tenancy right by member in favour of tenants, which amounts to 
transfer of interest could be decided by raising a dispute before Co-
B operative Court--Under the circumstances, High Court was right in 
not interfering with the order passed by appellate Court-Constitution 
of India, 1950-Article 226. 
Words and Phrases: 
C 
'Society', 'bye-laws', 'housing society', 'member', 'nominal 
member' and 'prescribed '-Meaning of in the context of Maharashtra 
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 
Respondent No.1 was a tenant co-partnership housing society 
constructing flats and respondent No.2 was admitted as member of 
D the Society in the year 1962 and a flatwas allotted to him. He inducted 
appellant No.1 in a room of the said flat on a certain monthly rental 
and later he was inducted in another room as well on certain 
additional monthly rental. Thereafter, another tenant, appellant N o.2; 
was also inducted in yet another room of the flat in question on 
E certain monthly rental. Respondent No.2 had accepted the rent up 
to December, I 986. Thereafter, appellants sent rent by Cheques, but 
the same was not accepted by him. Since, appellants were asked to 
vacate the premises in question, they had filed declaratory suits in 
the year 1987 before the Small Causes Court for a declaration that 
F they were inducted as tenants in the premises in question. 
Respondent No.2 contested the claim of the appellants. Both the suits 
were dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal preferred by the appellants 
before the appellate bench of Small Causes Court was allowed by 
the Court holding that they were inducted as tenants in the premises 
G in their occupation. In the meantime, respondent No.1 raised a 
dispute before the Cooperative Court under S1ection 91 of the 
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 praying for eviction 
of the appellants from the premises. The Cooperative Court by its 
award decided the dispute in favour ofrespondent No.1, passing an 
H order of eviction against appellants and directed respondent No.2, 
. . 
J 
M/S.ANITAENTERPRISESv. BELFERCOOP.HOUSING 
3 
SOCIETY LTD. 
member to occupy the premises. The order was affirmed in appeal A 
by the Appellate Court. Later, before the High Court three writ 
petitions were filed, one by the appellants and the other two writ 
petitions by respondent No.2 against the order passed by the 
a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.