( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner as well as Registrar, Co-operative Societies holding petitioner not entitled to become member of the respondent No. 6/society in terms of the bye-law of the Society as well as under Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973.

( 2 ) MR. Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the bye-laws of the Society which prescribes a prohibition cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner. By-law 5 (e) which is relevant to decide the controversy between the parties is as follows:

"5 (E ). He or his wife (she or her husband), in case of a woman or any of his/ her dependent does not own a dwelling house or plot for building a house in Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi Cantonment. "

( 3 ) HE says that owning of an unpartitioned common area measuring 38 sq. yards in a Village Lal Dora abadi would not be hit by the plain language of bye-law 5 of the Society. He has further contended that house which is an ancestral house in which the petitioner has got a share is in a Lal Dora Village abadi and would squarely fall within the meaning of congested locality . He has further contended that his case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in C. W. P. No. 3150/85 entitled Navjivan Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. v. Delhi Co-operative Tribunal, Delhi and Others, decided on 10. 7. 1987 where a similar question arose with regard to the interpretation of Rule 25 of the Co-operative Societies Rules:

" (29) It is not asserted by the petitioner Society or the Registrar of Co-operative Societies that House No. 145, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi is in a colony approved by the Corporation. It is also not asserted by the petitioner Society or the Registrar that House No. 145, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi is in an unapproved colony in the Union Territory in Delhi. What is urged by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies is that the decision taken by the Registrar in the matter of Rule 25 has to be that of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies alone, and that no person or body can interfere or determine whether a particular residential house or a plot of land is such that disqualification is incurred by the person who holds it. It do not agree. The Registrar is bound by a decision of a Civil Court given in a case which the Court had jurisdiction to decide. The authorities under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 cannot be permitted to ignore decision of Civil Courts. Annexure R-10 dated 4. 2. 1984 written by the Delhi Development Authority to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies shows that, in any case the premises No. 145, Savitri Nagar, New Delhi is not in an authorised or unauthorised colony. The land, it says, is in "lal dora" residential area of village Sheikh Sarai, and is also subject-matter of "earmarked" acquisition since 7. 1. 1969. . . . "

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Chandra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/society has contended that even after amendment to Rule 25 amended proviso would not affect the bye-laws of the Society, i. e. Bye-law 5. Learned Counsel , for the respondent No. 6 /society has contended that rule is not in derogation of the bye-laws of the Society but was to supplement the bye-laws. Another contention which has been raised by learned Counsel for the respondent is that the amendment to the Rule came on 24. 5. 1982 and, therefore, that will not help the case of the petitioner as petitioner became a member in the year 1980. He has further contended that even according to the amended rule, the house of the person according to the amended proviso has to be in a slum area. The case of the petitioner does not fall in that area as his house is not in a slum area. Lastly, Mr. Chandra has contended that even if one had a look at Sub-rule 3 of Rule 24, the petitioner has to fulfil the bye-law