NARENDRA K. KOCHAR versus SIND MAHARASHTRA COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 09-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NARENDRA K. KOCHAR 
v. 
SIND MAHARASHTRA COOP. HOUSING 
SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. 
JULY 9, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960/Bombay Rents, Hotel and 
C Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-Section 91/Sections 14(2), 15(2) 
and 15-A-Licensee-Eviction of under Section 91 of Societies Act-Licence 
subsisted on 1.2.1973 the appointed date-Held, eviction not permissible without 
taking recourse to provisions of Rent Control Act, since the licensee became 
a deemed tenant by virtue of the provisions of Rent Control Act. 
D 
Respondent No.2 was a tenant co-partner of respondent No.1 
tenant co-partnership Housing Society in respect of a flat in that society. 
Appellant was put in occupation of the said flat as a licensee by respondent 
No.2 in December, 1970 without previous consent of the society. 
Respondent-society instituted proceeding against respondent no.2 
E and Appellant seeking recovery of vacant possession of the flat on the 
ground that respondent no.2 had defaulted in payment of dues of the 
society and appellant was causing nuisance to the members of the society 
under Section 91 of the Maharshtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 
Respondent no.1 resisted the claim of society. Appellant objected to the 
F 
claim on the ground that even though he was a licensee, but as the licence 
was subsisting as on 1.2.1973, the appointed date under the Act, by virtue 
of provisions of Sections 14(2), 15(2) and 15-A(i) of Bombay Rents, Hotel 
and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 he became a tenant and thus 
could not be evicted from the premises in question without taking recourse 
to the provisions of Rent Control Act and proceedings initiated under 
G Section 91 of Housing Society Act was not maintainable. 
H 
Co-operative Court held that though respondent no.2 was not a 
defaulter, but since he put the appellant in occupation of the premises as 
a licensee without prior consent of the society, both of them were liable 
to be evicted. 
68 
N. K. KOCHAR r. SIND MAHARASHTRA COOP. HOUS. SOCIETY LTD. 
69 
On appeal, Co-operative Appellate Court upheld the order of A 
eviction. Appellant's writ petition against the same was dismissed by High 
Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the issue for consideration was whether 
appellant who was occupying the premises in question as licensee from 
before 1.2.1973 and whose licence was subsisting on that day became a B 
deemed tenant by virtue of provisions of Sections 14(2), 15(2) and 15-A 
of the Rent Control Act and could be evicted in the purported exercises 
of powers under Section 91 of the Societies Act without taking recourse 
to the provisions of Rent Control Act in spite of the express bar engrafted 
under Section 28 thereon. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Petition under Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative 
Societies Act, 1960 filed by the Society is not maintainable. It is not correct 
c 
to say that notwithstanding the protection given by Section 15-A, the D 
respondent-Society can proceed to evict him under Section 91 of the 
Societies Act on the plea that such a protection is not available against 
the Society. Such a view would defeat the legislative object of Section 15-
A of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
The plea that the appellant cannot seek protection against the Society as 
his entry into the flat was in violation of the bye-laws would have been E 
valid, had the statute not intervened. To take such a view would 
tantamount to carving out an exception in Section 15-A of the Rent Act 
that the said provision would not apply to licensees in occupation of flats 
owned by tenant-co-partnership Societies. The language of Section 15-A 
read with Section 5( 4-A) of the Rent Act does not warrant such a F 
construction. The mere fact that there was a violation of the bye-laws 
would not make any difference for it is not unknown that even in cases of 
breach of statute, the Legislature has conferred protection on those guilty 
of breach if the prevailing circumstances so warrant. The legislative policy 
is quite evident from Section 15-A and the protection given to licensees 
cannot be taken away on the plea that the initial entry of the licensee in G 
the flat was in breach of the bye-laws. If the occupant-licensee who is a 
protected tenant under Section 15-A can be evicted by the Society on the 
plea of absence of privily between the society and the protected tenant, it 

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