The jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to the recovery of possession of a tenement or the amount payable for its occupation between a co-operative housing society and its members or between members of the society is governed by the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, and the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIETY AND MEMBER - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO MEMBERS - JURISDICTION TO DECIDE DISPUTES - BOMBAY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1925, SECTIONS 54, 57 - BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947, SECTION 28.
Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose between a co-operative housing society and its member regarding the possession of a tenement and the amount payable for its occupation. The Registrar referred the dispute to his nominee, who dismissed the application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. The society appealed to the Bombay Co-operative Tribunal, which held that Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Rent Act) was not a bar to proceedings under Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 (the Co-operative Societies Act). The petitioner, a nominal member of the society, filed a special civil application in the High Court challenging the correctness of the order made by the Co-operative Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:

1. The relationship between a co-operative housing society and a member to whom a tenement has been allotted is not that of landlord and tenant under the ordinary law, but a special type of relationship governed by the Co-operative Societies Act and the rules, by-laws, and regulations made thereunder. 2. The relationship between two members of a co-operative housing society or between a member and a nominal member of such society can be that of landlord and tenant, but this must be decided in each case based on the facts and circumstances. 3. Disputes relating to the recovery of possession of a tenement or the amount payable for its occupation between a co-operative housing society and a member or between two members of the society can only be decided by the Registrar or his nominee under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act. 4. Disputes relating to the recovery of possession of a tenement or the amount payable for its occupation between a member of a co-operative housing society and a nominal member of the society, where the relationship between them is that of landlord and tenant, can only be decided by the Courts specified in Section 28 of the Rent Act.
Issues: 1. Whether a dispute between a co-operative housing society and its member, or between two members of the society, relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises, which have been leased by the society or one of its members to another member of the society, in accordance with the rules and by-laws of the society, can be decided by the Registrar or his Nominee under section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, or whether such a dispute can only be decided by the Courts referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The relationship between a co-operative housing society and its members is governed by the Co-operative Societies Act and the rules, by-laws, and regulations made thereunder, which create a special type of relationship different from that of landlord and tenant under the ordinary law. 2. The jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to the recovery of possession of a tenement or the amount payable for its occupation between a co-operative housing society and a member or between two members of the society is exclusively vested with the Registrar or his nominee under Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act. 3. The jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to the recovery of possession of a tenement or the amount payable for its occupation between a member of a co-operative housing society and a nominal member of the society, where the relationship between them is that of landlord and tenant, is exclusively vested with the Courts specified in Section 28 of the Rent Act.
Final Decision: The special civil application was sent back to the Division Bench for further proceedings in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT - Chainani, C.J.

(1) Respondent No. 1 is the Konkan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Respondent No. 2 is an ordinary member of the Society. She was allotted block No. 71 in the buildings of the Society. On 25th September 1952, respondent No. 2 leased her tenement to the petitioner for a period of 12 months. At that time the petitioner was not required to be a member of the Society under the by-laws of the Society as they then existed. On 27-9-1953, the Society amended its by-laws, two of which were by-laws Nos. 7A and 67. Under by-law No. 67 as amended, a vacant tenement could be offered to a person, who was not a shareholder, if he became a nominal member of the Society. By-law No. 7A as amended provided that a person maybe admitted as a nominal member for the purpose of joint holding of shares along with an ordinary member or for the purpose of taking lease under by-law No. 67. These by-law were approved by the Registrar on 27th August, 1954. On 24th March 1954 respondent No. 2 made an application to the Society, in which she stated that she did not require block No. 71 allotted to her for her personal use and occupation "for the present" and that she therefore proposed to permit the petitioner to occupy the same during that period. She asked for the Societys permission to this being done. The application was endorsed by the petitioner and he made a declaration on the application that the information given therein by respondent No. 2 was true and that he would abide by the Societys rules and regulations. On 19th August 1954 the petitioner applied for becoming a nominal member of the Society. This application was granted on 21st August 1954. The petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 500/- as security for due compliance with the rules and by-laws of the Society. This deposit was made by him and the petitioner became a nominal member of the Society in November 1954. In 1955 disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. According to respondent No. 2, the petitioner stopped payment of rent or compensation to her from October 1955. I may here mention that the rent fixed under the agreement of 1952, was Rs. 100/-. This had been increased to Rs. 120/- and subsequently to Rs. 130/- Respondent No. 2 (? Petitioner) objected to this increase in rent, as according to him it was in excess of standard rent. As respondent No. 2 was not able either to obtain possession of her tenement from the petitioner or the rent payable by him she approached the Society. On 27th September 1956, she made an application in which she stated that as the Society was the owner of the block, the Society should take further steps in the matter. After unsuccessful attempts at settlement of the dispute with the petitioner, a notice to quit was given to him in April 1957 on behalf of both the respondents. Respondent No. 2 (? Petitioner) did not vacate the tenement but offered to pay arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. Thereafter the two respondents made an application to the Registrar under Section 54 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act. They prayed for possession of block No. 71 and also for an order directing the petitioner to pay to them Rs. 1690/- for use and occupation of the premises and a further amount at the rate of Rs. 130 per month from the date of application to the date of delivery of possession. This dispute was referred by the Registrar to his nominee. It was contended by the petitioner before the Registrars nominee that he was a tenant of the premises and that consequently the Small Causes Court alone was competent to decide the dispute and that the nominee had no jurisdiction in the matter. This contention was accepted by the nominee, who accordingly dismissed the application made by the respondents. Against his decision the respondents appealed to the Bombay Co-operative Tribunal. The Tribunal following its previous decisions, held that Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Contr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document