The jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court to deal with disputes between a licensor and licensee in a building owned by a Co-operative Housing Society is not affected by the amendment of section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.

Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT - SECTION 91(2) - JURISDICTION OF CO-OPERATIVE COURT - DISPUTE BETWEEN LICENSOR AND LICENSEE - AMENDMENT OF PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT - SECTION 41 - EFFECT ON JURISDICTION OF CO-OPERATIVE COURT - REVIEW OF ORDER ADJOURNING PROCEEDINGS SINE DIE.
Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose between a flat owner and a licensee in a building owned by a Co-operative Housing Society. The Registrar referred the dispute to the Officer on Special Duty under section 91(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Officer on Special Duty adjourned the proceedings sine die due to pending litigation in the Small Cause Court. The landlord applied to restart the proceedings, but the application was rejected. The Co-operative Appellate Court directed the Officer on Special Duty to re-examine the matter. The Co-operative Court fixed the dispute for a hearing. The petitioner challenged the order of the Co-operative Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Co-operative Court has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between the petitioner and the landlord. The amendment of section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act does not affect the provisions of section 163(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, which bars the jurisdiction of civil or revenue courts in respect of disputes required to be referred to the Registrar or the Co-operative Court for decision. The initial issue as to jurisdiction whether there is a dispute as contemplated by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, has to be determined by the Registrar alone and cannot be raised or considered before the Registrar's nominee. The Co-operative Court did not err in reviewing the order dated 9-10-1970 by which the proceedings were adjourned sine die.
Issues: 1. Whether the Co-operative Court has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between the petitioner and the landlord? 2. Whether the amendment of section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act affects the provisions of section 163(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act? 3. Whether the initial issue as to jurisdiction whether there is a dispute as contemplated by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, can be raised or considered before the Registrar's nominee? 4. Whether the Co-operative Court erred in reviewing the order dated 9-10-1970 by which the proceedings were adjourned sine die?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court is not affected by the amendment of section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, as the amendment is prospective in character and operates only on suits which would, but for the amendment, have been filed either in the Bombay City Civil Court or in the High Court, depending upon the value of the subject-matter of the suit. 2. Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act does not affect the provisions of section 163(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act, which bars the jurisdiction of civil or revenue courts in respect of disputes required to be referred to the Registrar or the Co-operative Court for decision. 3. The initial issue as to jurisdiction whether there is a dispute as contemplated by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, has to be determined by the Registrar alone and cannot be raised or considered before the Registrar's nominee. 4. The Co-operative Court did not err in reviewing the order dated 9-10-1970 by which the proceedings were adjourned sine die, as the ground on which the proceedings were adjourned sine die did not survive.
Final Decision: The petition is dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT - Chandurkar M.N. J. : - The respondent No. 1, who is the owner of a flat in a building owned by the respondent No. 2, which is a Co-operative Housing Society, took a proceeding against the petitioner for possession of the flat on the ground that the petitioner, who was originally a licensee, was not entitled to be in possession because the licence was terminated. There is no dispute that under the provisions of section 91(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as it was then in force, the dispute was referred to the Officer on Special Duty by the Registrar for being dealt with. This dispute commenced on 15th March 1969. Prior to that, however, on 21-7-1968 the respondent No. 1(hereinafter referred to as “the landlord”) started ejectment proceeding under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act against the petitioner. It may be stated that this application for ejectment was dismissed for default on 16-8-1973. The petitioner had also made an application for fixation of standard rent before the Small Cause Court in 1969 alleging that he was a tenant. The rent agreed, according to him, was originally Rs. 300 per month. In that proceeding an order for payment of interim rent at Rs. 120 per month was made.

2. In 1970, it appears that because the landlords application for ejectment was pending, as also the application for fixation of standard rent by the petitioner was also pending, the Officer on Special Duty to whom the dispute was referred, made an order postponing the proceeding under section 91 sine die. Indeed, the order expressly states the pendency of the proceedings in the Small Cause Court as the reason for adjourning the proceedings by the Officer on Special Duty, and the dispute was kept pending “until the question of fact and law is decided in Small Cause Court.”

3. It appears that after the landlords ejectment application was reject- ed, the petitioner filed a suit on 22-8-1973 in the Court of Small Causes for a declaration that he was a tenant. The landlord had applied to the Officer on Special Duty for restarting the proceeding. This application was rejected by the Officer on Special Duty on 8-10-1974. In a revision application filed against this order before the Co-operative Appellate Court, the Court direct-ed the Officer on Special Duty to re-examine the entire matter. Consequent upon this direction, the Co-operative Court to whom in the meanwhile the proceedings came to be transferred, decided on 2-8-1976 to proceed with the matter.

4. Before the Co-operative Court, one of the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act had been amended by Maharashtra Act No. XIX of 1976 as a result of which a new section 41 was substituted in place of the old section 41 and, according to the petitioner, in view of the new provision now made in section 41, the proper forum in respect of immovable property in Bombay in a claim relating to recovery of possession between a licensor and a licensee was the Small Cause Court and, therefore, the Co-operative Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. This contention was negatived by the Co-operative Court which held that the over-riding provision in section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was unaffected by the amendment of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and that the only effect of the new provision was that while the jurisdiction to entertain suits in the City of Bombay before the amendment vested in the Small Cause Court, in the City Civil Court and in the High Court, depending upon the value of the property, after the amendment all the suits would have to be filed in the Small Cause Court. The Co-operative Court, therefore, fixed the dispute for a hearing. This order of the Co-operative Court was challenged before the Co-operative Appellate Court.

5. The Appellate Court held that since the Society was joined as a party to the dispute as a co-disputant, the dispute beto

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1980 Supreme(Bom) 42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYChandurkar M.N. and Kotwal V.S., JJ.P. A. Narayanan….Petitioner.VersusDr. S. Shankar and another….Respondents.Spl. C.A. No. 5051 of l976, decided on 5-2-1980.Advocates appeared:A.P. Vaze, for petitioner.J.P. Deodhar for D.R. Dhanuka., for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

The jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court to deal with disputes between a licensor and licensee in a building owned by a Co-operative Housing Society is not affected by the amendment of section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.