PURAN SINGH SAHNI versus SMT. SUNDARI BHAGWANDAS KRIPALANI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 592 · Decided: 20-02-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
PURAN SINGH SAHNI 
v 
SMT. SUNDARI BHAGWANOAS KRIPALANI AND ·OTHER~ 
FEBRUARY 20, 1991 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 
1947/ Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Ss.5(4A), 5(1l)(bb), 15A/ 
s. 105-Agreement giving temporarily for a fixed period, use of Premi-
~es with furniture a~td fittings on compensation for use and occupation 
without creating any interest in the grantee-Whether a leave and licence 
or a lease-Licence terminated w.e.f 10.3.1972-Status of the occupant 
.thereafter-Whether entitled to Protection as a deemed tenant under 
s. 15-A. 'Leave and licence' and 'Lease'-Distinction between. 
--r 
I 
Constitution of India: Art. 14: S.91, Maharashtra Co-operative Y 
D 
Societies Act, 1960--Whether ultra vires. 
· 
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: S.91-Eviction 
of a nominal member by a tenant copartner member of a tenant copart-
nership Co-operative Housing Society-Whether a dispute touching 
'business of a society'-Whether the society and tenant co-partner-
member -can raise a dispute under-Jurisdiction of Co-operative 
~ 
E 
Courts-Whether barred by s. 28(1) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and 
Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. 
The second re~pondent was a te~~l!t copartnership Co-opera.-
tive Housing Society and father of the first respondent was its tenant 
co-partner member._ By an application dated 10.6.1969 he sought 
F 
permission of the society to temporarily induct the appellant into his 
flat. On the same date the appellant applied to the said Society for its 
nominal membership stating -that he intended to take the flat for 
temporary use and occupation, that he would not claim any right of 
permanent nature and that on receipt of notice he would vacate the flat. 
By an agreement of leave and licence dated 11.6."1969, the father of 
G 
respondent no.1 (licensor) gave use of the flat with its furniture and 
fittings to the appellant (licensee) on Rs.1,000 per month as compensa-
tion for use and occupation for a period of 11 months with a facility of 
renewal of the agreement for two such further periods. The Managing 
Committee of the Society, by its Resolution dated 13.6-.1969. I grailted 
, the permission. 
H. 
592 
' ,_ 
,_-
-
--
---+--
P.S. SAHNI v. SMT. S.B. KRIPALANI 
593 
The licensor by letter dated 22.1.1972 purported to terminate the 
licence w.e.f. 10.3.1972, and asked the appellant to vacate the Oat, but 
the latter declined to do so. On receiving intimation from the licensor, 
the Society, by its letter dated 22.2.1972, required the appellant to 
vacate the flat and deliver its possession to the licensor before the 
stipulated date, but in vain. Instead, the appellant on 13.3.1972 applied 
to the Court of Small Causes, Bombay for fixation of standard rent of 
the flat. 
In April 1972 the licensor and the Society raised a dispute under · 
A 
B 
s. 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to recover 
possession from the appellant, who in tum r.Ied a suit in the Court of 
Small Causes, Bombay for declaration that he was tenant of the flat. He 
also filed an interim application for stay of the dispute proceeding till 
C 
disposal of his application for fixation of standard rent, which was 
rejected and his writ petitiQD against the said order was also dismissed 
by the High Court on 7.9.1977. 
The Co-operative Court, Bombay dismissed the dispute proceed-
D 
ing holding that the appellant was a licensee and not a tenant but the 
society was an idle party which acted in collusion with the licensor to 
evict the appellant. 
On appeal by the licensor and the Society, the Maharashtra State 
Co-operative Appellate Court set aside the order of the Co-operative 
E, 
Court, against which the appellant f"lled a writ _petition before the High 
Court contending that the agreement, though styled as a leave and 
licence, was a lease; that s.91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies 
Act was not attracted and could not have been invoked by the respon-
dents; and that s.91 itself was ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution to 
the extent it tried to reach non-members of ~o-operative societies_. The p 
High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal by 
special leave. 
B_y Maharashtra Act 17 of 1973, ss.5(4A)! and 15-A were intro-
duced in the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) 
Act, 1947} to confer the status and protection of a tenant on a licensee, 
G 
who, on the first da
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.