1989 Supreme(SC) 258
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.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 14 - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - Section 28 - Section 26 - Section 15 - Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 - Section 91- Section 5 - Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Transfer of Property - Section 105 – Licensee – Rent - Respondent Shyam Cooperative Housing Society Ltd - was a tenant co-partnership cooperative society and late father of respondent 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 second floor, Nanik Niwas, situate at Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay (on a monthly rent of Rs 1000 - 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 flat on receipt of notice thereof - By an agreement of leave and licence entered into between appellant and Advani, appellant took exclusive possession of flat - agreement was for a period of 11 months and was renewable for 2 further periods of 11 months each - Vide Resolution, Managing Committee of Society granted permission – Held , where a tenant co-partner member of a registered co-partnership type cooperative housing society inducting another person into her flat for a term of eleven months subject to renewal of term from time to time after obtaining societys permission and after person so inducted becoming a nominal member of society and agreement between parties embodied in usual standard form of leave and licence, it was held that tenant co-partner member only created a licence and not a lease and was applicable - There also nominal membership of society was obtained in terms of societys bye-laws and licence was terminated by notice after expiry of term, but occupant was not vacating - Claim made by co-partner for ejectment of occupant was held to constitute a dispute touching business of a society within meaning and hence Registrars jurisdiction to entertain claim was held not to have been barred - Applying law laid down in above decisions we are of view that instant dispute is one envisaged in Section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Cooperative Courts rightly exercised jurisdiction – 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