JUDGMENT - KARNIK D.G., J.:-By this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15th March, 1991 passed by the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Solapur dismissing the Appeal No. 434 of 1989 and confirming the decree for possession passed against the petitioner by the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 71 of 1985.

2. The respondent is a tenant occupying a shop premises admeasuring 12 x 15 in the property bearing City Survey No. 8737/15-A situated within the limits of Solapur Municipal Corporation. The property originally belonged to one Mr. Shah. By an indenture of sale dated 22nd August, 1983, the respondent purchased western half portion of the said property and the remaining eastern half portion was purchased by the brother of the respondent. On 10th January, 1985 the respondent filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 71 of 1985 against the petitioner for possession of western half portion of the shop in possession of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) on the ground that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of the rent and that the respondent required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for the purpose of his business. By a judgment dated 30th June, 1989 the trial Court decreed the suit on both the grounds. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the VIth Additional District Judge, Solapur by a judgment and order dated 15th March, 1991. That judgment is impugned in this writ petition.

3. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society formed under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act and deemed to be registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Prior to the institution of the suit, no notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was issued to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Shri Kumbhakoni, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as a mandatory notice required to be issued under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was not issued to the Registrar, the suit was not maintainable and therefore, ought to have been dismissed by the courts below. Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act reads as under :

"164. Notice necessary in Suits.---No suit shall be instituted against a society, or any of its Officers, in respect of any act touching the business of the society, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left."

4. A bare reading of section 164 would show that notice to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies before filing of a suit is required to be issued only if the suit is in respect of any act touching the business of the society. The question therefore, is whether the present suit for possession is in respect of any act touching the business of the society. Neither the memorandum of association nor any other document showing what are the objects of the petitioner society has been filed on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the business of the society is to promote Khadi Gramodyog and this fact is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is clear that taking the premises on rent or dealing in an immovable property is not a business of the respondent society. For the purpose of carrying on its business or dealing in the articles of Khadi and/or the articles manufactured by the Village Industries (Gramodyog), the petitioner society may acquire property on ownership or on rental basis. Taking of a property on lease or rent would be incidental to the purpose of running a business, but taking of the property on lease by itself is not a business of the petitioner societ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document