LexO. N. BHATNAGAR versus SMT. RUKIBAI NARSINDAS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
" • ,.<., 0. :N. BHATNAGAR v., SMT. RUKIBAI NARSINDAS & ORS. April 2 I; /982 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.) 681 Maharashtra C'oofllrative Societies Act, 1960 Section 91(1)-'~Dispute touch· ing the business of the Society"-Whtther a claim for ejectment by a Hous/116 COopeTtiliv~ Soci~ty o,,r. an occupant of a lflat who had been let i1'to pOssession of the premises under an agreement of leave and licence executed between him and a member of tM Society is a "dispute" referable to section 91(1) oftM Act read with bye/aw• 66 & 68(a). A B c Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Sections D 5(4A), 13, ISA and 28, (Scope of-WhetMr the "non-obstante" clauJe In Section 28 of the Rent A.ct has an overriding effect ove'r the non-obstante clau1e in Section 91(1) of Sockti•s Act. Applicability of Section 15A of the Rent Act Re:!}udlcata -Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Shyam Cooperative Housing Society Limited is constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 as a tenant co- partnership type housing society. Respondent No. 1 Smt. Rukibai N. Bhayoaoi who is a copartoer tenant member of llat No. 52 in building SA in the housing colony known as "Sbyam ,Niwas'~ situate at Warden Road, Bombay, iriducted the appellant in the said fiat under an Agreement of Goa ve and Licence dated November 28, 1961 after the appellant was accepted by the Society as a'"nominal member". , The agreement was renewed from time to time and tho period of the Jut agreement expired on February 28, 1965.. By her notice dated March 31, · 1965;,rcspondoot NO'. I called upon the. appellant to vacate the premises as bis occuP.tioo of the promises had become unlawful after .termination of the licence. The appellant failed to comply with the demand and therefore, respondent No. I preferred the claim f0r posso1Sion before tho cooperative court which by its judgment dated April 28, 1978 made ·an Award against the appellant for possession .. r the fiat in dispute and for arrears of rent and mesoo profits amounting to Rs. 30,000 against (tho awar.d )tho appellant filed an appeal before . the cooperative Appellate Court but it was ·dismissed in January 1979. Thereafter ihe appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court in February 1979 and it was dismissed in March 1981. Tho Letters patent Appeal preferred by tho appellant was also rejected. ·Hence the appeal by.special !eave. Dism;uiog the appeal, the Court, . HBLD '" (!) Tho claim by ·the society together with SUCb member for eject· tnent of a person who was permitted ·to otcllPY having become a ~ominal member E F G H • A c D F G H SUPREME Cl>UllT RSl'<>RTS II ~~21 3 s.c.li. thereof, upon- revocation of 1iccnce, is a "dispute" falling within the purview of Sec. (I) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. [696 D-E] Deccan Merchanrs Cooperative Bank· Ltd. v. M/s. Dalichand lugraj Jain & Ors. [1969] I SCR 887, distinguished. · 2:1 The proceedings under section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 were not barred by the 'provisions of Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging. House Rates Control ·Act, 1947. The two Acts can be best harmonised by holding that in matters covered by the Rent Act, its provisions, rather than the provisions of the Act should apply. But, where the parties admittedly do not stand in tho-jural relationship of landlord an.d tenant, as here the dispute would be governed by Section 91(1) of the Societies •Act. The appellant by virtue of his being a nominal member, acquired a riRht to occupy the fiat as a licensee, but his rights were inchoate. [697 B-D] Sabharwa//Jrothers and Another v. Smt, Guna Amrit Thandani of &Jmbay, -. [1973] l SCR 53 discussed and distinguisljed. · ~ 2:2 The two enactments deal with two distinct and separate fields and therefore the nan-obstante clause in s. 91(!) of the Act and that ins. 28 of the Rent Act ope.rate in two different planes. The two legislations rertain to different topics ofl~gislation. It will be noticed that s. 28 of the Rent Act proceeds on the basis that exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on certain courts to decidei all questions or claims under that Act as to parties between whom there is or was a relationship of landlord and tenant. It doea not invest those courts with exclu- sive power to try questions of title, such as between the rig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.