SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K.N. SAIKIA AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.
PURAN SINGH SAHNI
Versus
SUNDARI BHAGWANDAS KRIPALANI (SMT) AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal No. 2846 of 1989{From the Judgment and Order dated April 24, 1989 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 4118 of 1986}
Decided on 20-2-1991
Advocates appeared
H.S. Guru Raja Rao, Senior Advocate (S. Markandeya and Ms C. Markandeya, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant;
L.A. Kriplani and S.K. Jain, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - Maharashtra Act, 1973 - Section 15-A - Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act - Section 91(1) - Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Agreement of leave and licence - Certain licensees in occupation on First February 1973 to become tenants - Renewal of a lease - Whether the agreement dated June 11, 1969 was one of lease or of leave and licence - Respondent 2 Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. was a tenant co-partnership cooperative society (Society) and late father of respondent 1 (Advani) was its tenant co-partner member. By an application Advani obtained permission of Society to induct appellant temporarily into his flat and accordingly, appellant took on rent from Advani Flat on a monthly rent - On same date appellant, under Societys rules, applied for its nominal membership stating, inter alia, that he intended to take flat for temporary use and occupation; that he would not claim any right of permanent nature; and that he would vacate the flat on receipt of notice thereof - Held, There also nominal membership of the society was obtained in terms of societys bye-laws and the licence was terminated by notice after expiry of the term, but the occupant was not vacating. Claim made by the co-partner under Section 91 of Act, 1960 for ejectment of occupant was held to constitute a dispute touching the business of a society within meaning of Section 91 and hence Registrars jurisdiction to entertain the claim was held not to have been barred under Section 28 of the Rent Act - Section 91 is ultra vires Article 14 of Constitution to extent it tries to reach persons who are not members is not tenable, inasmuch as appellant is involved in a dispute touching the business of the Society and he was a nominal member of the Society by dint of his agreement of leave and licence and he was made so on his application – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
SAIKIA, J.— This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated April 24, 1989 in Writ Petition No. 4118 of 1986 dismissing the petition.
2. Respondent 2 Shyam Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. was a tenant co-partnership cooperative society (for short, the Society) and Panjumal H. Advani late father of respondent 1 (for short, Advani) was its tenant co-partner member. By an application dated June 10, 1969, Advani obtained permission of the Society to induct the appellant temporarily into his flat and accordingly, the appellant took on rent from Advani Flat No. 24, Block No. 1, second floor, Nanik Niwas, situate at Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay (for short, the flat) on a monthly rent of Rs 1000 (Rupees one thousand) on June 10, 1969. On the same date the appellant, under the Societys rules, applied for its nominal membership stating, inter alia, that he intended to take the flat for temporary use and occupation; that he would not claim any right of permanent nature; and that he would vacate the flat on receipt of notice thereof. By an agreement of leave and licence dated June 11, 1969 entered into between the appellant and Advani, the appellant took exclusive possession of the flat. The agreement was for a period of 11 months and was renewable for 2 further periods of 11 months each. Vide Resolution No. 208 dated June 13, 1969, the Managing Committee of the Society granted the permission.
3. By letter dated January 22, 1972 Advani purported to terminate the licence with effect from March 10, 1972 and asked the appellant to vacate the flat and the appellant having not acceded to the request, Advani informed the Society, which, vide letter dated February 22, 1972 required the appellant to vacate the flat and to deliver possession thereof to Advani on or before March 10, 1972. The appellant instead of vacating the flat filed an application in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay on March 13, 1972 for fixation of its standard rent. In April 1972, Advani and the Society raised a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act to recover possession from the appellant who in turn filed Declaratory Suit No. 989/5305 of 1972 in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay on November 10, 1972 seeking a declaration that he was the tenant of the flat, with an interim application for stay of the proceeding till the disposal of his application for fixation of standard rent; but that application was rejected and the appellant was thereafter unsuccessful in his writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed on September 7, 1977. The learned Judge of the II Cooperative Court, Greater Bombay by his judgment dated March 6, 1985 dismissed the suit holding that the appellant was a licensee and not a tenant, but the Society was an idle party and had acted in collusion with Advani to vacate the appellant.
4. Advani and the Society appealed therefrom to the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Bombay in Appeal No. 397 of 1985 which was allowed and the impugned judgment of the II Cooperative Court was set aside on July 31, 1986.
5. The appellant impugned the appellate order in Writ Petition No. 4118 of 1986 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, contending, inter alia, that the agreement between the appellant and Advani, though styled as a leave and licence, was a lease; that Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was not attracted and could not have been invoked by Advani and the Society; and that Section 91 itself was ultra vires the Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the extent it tried to reach persons who were not members of cooperative societies.
6. The High Court, while dismissing the writ petition, inter alia, held that the agreement was of temporary nature and no interest in the flat having been created in favour of the appellant, even though he had exclusive possession, it could not have been a lease; that the alleged collusion between Adva
Board of Revenue v. A.M. Ansari
Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Dar Doss Dey and Co.
Sohan Lal Naraindas v. Laxmidas Raghunath Gadit
Chandavarkar Sita Patna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram
relied on : D.H. Maniar v. Woman Laxman Kudav
followed : O.N. Bhatnagar v. Rukibai Narsindas
Krishna Rajpal Bhatia v. Leela H. Advani
distinguished : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Shyam Cooperative Housing Society
relied on : Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand fugraj Jain
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.