The Registrar's satisfaction under section 93 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is of a prima facie nature and does not require notice to the non-disputant. The Registrar's decision is not final and can be challenged before the Co-operative Court.

Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - DISPUTE - JURISDICTION OF CO-OPERATIVE COURT - REFERENCE BY DEPUTY REGISTRAR - VALIDITY - SATISFACTION OF REGISTRAR - NOTICE TO NON-DISPUTANT - FINALITY OF DECISION - AMENDMENT OF ACT - DIRECT FILING OF DISPUTES IN CO-OPERATIVE COURT.
Fact of the Case:

A dispute was raised by a co-operative housing society and its member against a licensee occupying a flat in the society's building. The Deputy Registrar referred the dispute to the Co-operative Court. The licensee challenged the validity of the reference, contending that the dispute did not touch the business of the society and that the society was an idle party. The Co-operative Court upheld the reference. The licensee filed a petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Co-operative Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the dispute did touch the business of the society as it was concerned with the occupation of the flat by the licensee, which was in breach of the society's bye-laws. The society had a legitimate interest in ensuring that the flats in its building were occupied by members, except in cases where due to certain exigencies, the same were permitted to be occupied by strangers for a limited period. The High Court also held that the Registrar's satisfaction under section 93 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was of a prima facie nature and did not require notice to the non-disputant. The High Court further held that the Registrar's decision was not final and could be challenged before the Co-operative Court. The High Court also observed that the Act should be amended to permit litigants to file their disputes directly in the Co-operative Court, thereby eliminating unnecessary litigation and waste of time on preliminaries.
Issues: 1. Whether the dispute touched the business of the society? 2. Whether the society was an idle party? 3. Whether the Registrar's satisfaction under section 93 of the Act required notice to the non-disputant? 4. Whether the Registrar's decision was final? 5. Whether the Act should be amended to permit litigants to file their disputes directly in the Co-operative Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The dispute touched the business of the society as it was concerned with the occupation of the flat by the licensee, which was in breach of the society's bye-laws. The society had a legitimate interest in ensuring that the flats in its building were occupied by members, except in cases where due to certain exigencies, the same were permitted to be occupied by strangers for a limited period. 2. The society was not an idle party as it had a legitimate interest in the dispute. 3. The Registrar's satisfaction under section 93 of the Act was of a prima facie nature and did not require notice to the non-disputant. 4. The Registrar's decision was not final and could be challenged before the Co-operative Court. 5. The Act should be amended to permit litigants to file their disputes directly in the Co-operative Court, thereby eliminating unnecessary litigation and waste of time on preliminaries.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned trial Judge and directed the Co-operative Court to dispose of the dispute in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT - V.S. DESHPANDE, C, J.:---Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the licensee") filed a miscellaneous petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of "reference" of the dispute made by respondent No. 2, Deputy Registrar, under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to respondent No. 3, the Co-operative Court, raised jointly by appellant No. 1, the Co-operative Housing Society and appellant No. 2 its member.

2. The disputant raised this dispute on 15th September, 1975, for possession of Flat No. 6, held by the member in the building owned by the society, and compensation for its use against the licensee. The flat was purchased by the member form the builders in or about the year 1964 before the society was incorporated in 1965 and conveyance of the building was executed in its favour. The member was required to leave Bombay due to exigencies of her husbands employment and the flat came to be occupied by the licensee on leave an licence basis under an agreement, dated 1st September, 1972. It was initially for 11 months with option to the licensee to renew it for further periods of eleven months twice. The husband retired from the service and the member required the flat in dispute for her and her familys occupation. The application raising the dispute did aver how the flats in building were intended for the occupation of members and how the restoration of possession was necessary for this purpose. This dispute was referred, as indicated above on 17th September, 1975.

3. The licensee submitted her written statement before the Co-operative Court. Amongst other defences, she challenged its jurisdiction on two points. She firstly claimed to be the tenant of the member (1) on the true interpretation of the agreement and also (2) because of the licensee having become tenant with effect from 1st February, 1973 on the amendment of the Rent Act under Act No. 17 of 1973. The dispute thus was alleged to be triable by the Court under the Rent Act. She secondly alleged that the dispute, essentially being between the member and her licensee, did not touch the business of the society to attract section 91 of the Act. It was also alleged that the society was an idle party, it having no interest in the possession of the flat and it having lent its name to the dispute merely to attract the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under section 91 of the Act. It was also indicated that the standard rent fixation application was already filed by the licensee in the Court of Small Causes under the Bombay Rent Act.

4. At the instance of the licensee the question of jurisdiction was tried by the Co-operative Court as a preliminary issue without recording any evidence. The Co-operative Court held that on averments, the society cannot be held to be an idle party, and as such the dispute did touch its business to attract section 91 of the Act and it had jurisdiction to try the dispute.

5. The validity of this order was challenged in the miscellaneous petition in this Court. By an order dated 23rd April, 1980, Mody, J., upheld the contention of the licensee and quashed the reference. The learned Judge held that the business of the society to construct building and allot the flats therein to its members came to an end with the members being put into the possession thereof. The subsequent act of restoration of possession form the licensee to the member could not touch its business. Merely lending the name by the society without indicating any breach of the bye-laws cannot touch its business to attract section 91 of the Act.

6. Mr. Dhanuka, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, contends that under the bye-laws, the society is as much interested in the restoration of possession to its member, as the member himself or herself can be. It is a part of the business of the society to ensure that flats in i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1982 Supreme(Bom) 112

The Registrar's satisfaction under section 93 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is of a prima facie nature and does not require notice to the non-disputant. The Registrar's decision is not final and can be challenged before the Co-operative Court.

Cases Referred (1)