1. The question for our consideration is whether the mere membership of a deceased member of a cooperative group housing society can be inherited by his nominee, who is otherwise ineligible to be a member of that society. Our answer to this question is in the negative in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Gayatri De v. Mousumi Cooperative Group Housing Society & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 2271.

2. The Petitioner is a cooperative group housing society and one of its objects is to acquire land on lease for development from the slum wing of the Delhi Development Authority and construction of residential houses or flats for allotment to its members. The membership of the Petitioner-Society is restricted only to widows having an income which does not exceed Rs.1,500/- per month from all sources.

3. The mother of Respondent No. 3, Smt. Ganesh Devi, was a widow who satisfied the eligibility requirements for membership as per the Bye-Laws of the Petitioner-Society. As such, she was made a member of the Petitioner-Society. However, before she could be allotted a flat, she passed away leaving her son (Respondent No. 3) as her nominee.

4. Respondent No. 3 sought to take over the membership rights of his deceased mother but the Petitioner-Society did not accept his membership since he was not eligible.

5. On these broad facts, Respondent No. 3 filed Complaint No. 2471/1992 before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (District Forum-II). By an order dated 13th July, 1994, the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum came to the conclusion that Respondent No. 3 was not eligible to be a member of the Petitioner-Society and, therefore, his complaint was devoid of any merit. We are told that the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum has attained finality.

6. Not being satisfied with the above decision, Respondent No. 3 raised a dispute before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies claiming membership of the Petitioner-Society. We are not concerned with the first round of litigation that took place before the Registrar but eventually by an order dated 30th November, 2000 (passed in the second round) the Registrar came to the conclusion that Respondent No. 3 was entitled to step into the shoes of his deceased mother and was, therefore, entitled to membership of the Petitioner-Society.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner-Society filed a revision petition under Section 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 being Case No. 24/2001-CA. The revision petition came to be dismissed by the Financial Commissioner by the impugned order dated 15th February, 2001.

8. The only contention urged before us by learned counsel for the Petitioner is that membership of the Petitioner-Society was restricted to widows who have an income of less than Rs.1,500/- per month from all sources. Respondent No. 3 is not a widow (being a male) and is also earning well over Rs.1,500/- per month as a bank official. The purpose of setting up the Petitioner-Society was to assist indigent and homeless widows and Respondent No. 3 does not fall in this category by any stretch of imagination. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 was that her client was entitled to step into the shoes of his deceased mother being her nominee, and he was merely seeking to enforce this entitlement that was available to him.

9. In our opinion, the dispute is really covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Gayatri De v. Mousumi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.& Ors, AIR 2004 SC 2271. There are in fact two situations that can arise in a case such as the present. The first is where the deceased member has not been allotted any plot or flat and is merely a member of a society. The second situation is where a deceased member has been allotted a plot or flat by virtue of his or her membership of a society.

10. In the first situation as mentioned above, there is no interest of a deceased member that can dev