SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Bom) 45

A.N.MODY, V.S.DESHPANDE
Contessa Knit Wear – Appellant
Versus
Udyog Mandir Co-operative Housing Society – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

What is the jurisdiction for eviction disputes in a Co-operative Housing Society when a member and licensee are involved, and does it fall under the Co-operative Societies Act Section 91 or the Rent Act Section 28? What is the appropriate determination of who qualifies as the "landlord" under the Rent Act in the context of a co-operative housing society, member, and licensee, and can the Rent Act protect the licensee-tenant? What are the implications of the society's ownership and the member's occupancy for eviction proceedings under Section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act versus the Rent Act, and is the society bound to proceed under the Rent Act or under the Co-operative Societies Act?

What is the jurisdiction for eviction disputes in a Co-operative Housing Society when a member and licensee are involved, and does it fall under the Co-operative Societies Act Section 91 or the Rent Act Section 28?

What is the appropriate determination of who qualifies as the "landlord" under the Rent Act in the context of a co-operative housing society, member, and licensee, and can the Rent Act protect the licensee-tenant?

What are the implications of the society's ownership and the member's occupancy for eviction proceedings under Section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act versus the Rent Act, and is the society bound to proceed under the Rent Act or under the Co-operative Societies Act?


JUDGMENT - V.S. Deshpande, J.:---Respondent No 1 is a Co-operative Housing Society and as such owner of a building “Udyog Mandir” at Pitambar Lane, Mahim, Bombay 400 016. It is registered in 1968. Respondent No.2 is its member as a co-partner tenant and as such a holder of three units, viz. Units Nos. 11 and 12 on the ground floor and Unit No. 3 on the second floor. The member appears to have purchase the units from a builder after he had already formed the society of which he became member in the year 1971 on purchase of units. The petitioner was inducted in the unit 3 on the second floor by the member under a leave and licence agreement dated 23-7-1972 for a period of 11 months on payment of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per month.

2. The society appears to have object in writing to the petitioners such possession on 4-9-1972 on the ground that it secured such possession without (1) its being a nominal member, and (2) obtaining prior permission as required under its bye-laws. Some civil and criminal proceedings were initiated by the petitioner initially. The petitioner then instituted a declaratory suit being Suit No. 771/2858 of 1973 on 11th June, 1973, in the Court of Small
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top