A Cooperative Society is not a Corporation established by or under a Central or State Act, thus it is subject to the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT

The Challenge

1. Appellant has filed this Appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 29 June 2022 passed by the District Court, Kolhapur dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No. 313 of 2019 and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 9 October 2019 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Kolhapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 448/2005. The Trial Court has decreed the suit and has directed the Appellant-Defendant to handover possession of the suit property to Plaintiff/Respondent in addition to conduct of enquiry in respect of mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 w.e.f. 31 May 2005 till delivery of possession.

Facts

2. First floor alongwith its attic located in the three storied building at C.T.S. No. 3056, Tarabai Road, Kolhapur is the suit property. The suit property was owned by Ramrao Mahadev Misal, which was leased to the Defendants, which is Shetakari Sahakari Sangh Ltd., a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). It is contended that the period of lease expired on 31 October 2002. Original Plaintiff-Ramrao Mahadev Misal filed Regular Civil Suit No. 448/2005 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division seeking ejectment of Defendant-Society after terminating the lease and claimed possession, inter-alia on the ground of bonafide requirement. It was claimed in the Plaint that since Defendant had paid up capital of more than Rs.1 crore, it is not entitled to protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (the Rent Act). The suit was resisted by Defendant-Society by filing Written Statement inter-alia contending that its share capital is less than Rs.1 crore and that Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit involving tenancy disputes. The Trial Court decreed the Suit on 26 March 2010 directing the Defendant to handover possession of the suit property within six months in addition to conduct of enquiry into mesne profits. The Trial Court's Decree was challenged by the Defendant before the District Court, Kolhapur by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.135/2010. During pendency of the Appeal, the suit property was purchased by Dilip Shankar Patil and he thus became owner of thereof. He was arrayed as Respondent No.6 in Regular Civil Appeal No.135/2010. The District Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court on 13 June 2018.

3. The purchaser, Dilip Shankar Patil filed Second Appeal No. 710/2018 before this Court challenging the Decree of the first Appellate Court. This Court framed substantial question of law as to whether Defendant is a 'Corporation' within the meaning of Rent Act so as to exclude its applicability. This Court passed Order dated 21 June 2019 remanding the suit before the Trial Court after observing that the issue of Defendant being Corporation was never raised or decided in the first round of litigation. The suit was therefore remanded to the Trial Court to enable Plaintiff to raise a plea that Defendant is a Corporation within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of the Rent Act. Liberty was granted for amending the plaint. Accordingly, the plaint was amended raising a plea that Defendant is a Corporation within the meaning of Section 3(1) (b) of the Rent Act. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 9 October 2019 holding that Defendant is a Corporation within the meaning of Rent Act. It also held that Defendant has a share capital of more than Rs.1 crore. It was further held that the provisions of Rent Act are not applicable to the suit. It was further held that the bonafide requirement was proved by the Plaintiff and that no hardship would be caused to the Defendant if decree of eviction is passed.

4. The Trial Court's decree was assailed by the Defendant before the District Court, Kolhapur by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 313 of 2019. The first Appellate Court has however proceeded to dismiss the Appeal and has confirmed the Decree passed by the Trial Cou