VEENA BIRBAL, J.

1. A short question relating to interpretation of Rule 25(1)(c)(i) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) arises for decision in this petition. The said Rule, to the extent it is relevant for the purposes of this case, is reproduced below:- “Rule 25: Disqualification of membership

(1) No person shall be eligible for admission as a member of a co-operative Society if he ………

(a) ………………

(b)……………… (c) In the case of membership of a Housing Society:- (i) He owns a residential house or a plot of land for the construction of a residential house in any of the approved or un-approved colonies or other localities in the Union Territory of Delhi in his own name or in the name of his spouse or any of his dependent children on lease hold or free hold basis : provided, disqualification as laid down in Sub-Rule (1)(c)(i) shall not be applicable in case of persons who are only co-sharers of joint ancestral properties in congested localities (Slum Area) whose share is less than 66.72 sq. meters (80 sq. yards) of land.”

2. The facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as under:-

Petitioner became the member of respondent no. 6 Society in the year 1982. As per the petitioner, he continued to pay his share. He has, in all, paid Rs.1,20,000/- towards the share of construction to the Society. On 20.04.1989, petitioner received a show-cause notice from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, i.e., respondent no. 3 wherein it was stated that it had been brought to the notice of the Department that the wife of the petitioner had property no. 8649, Shastri Nagar, Delhi in her name and as such petitioner had incurred the disqualification under Rule 25(1)(c)(i) of the said Rules. A reply was submitted by the petitioner wherein he stated that the area of the said house was 70 sq. yds. and was situated in a slum area and he was only a care taker as the Power of Attorney was in the name of his wife and, as such, he had not incurred disqualification as is alleged.

3. The Registrar heard the petitioner as well as the Society and thereafter passed order dated 07.11.1991 holding that the case of the petitioner was weak as his wife purchased house no. 8649, Shastri Nagar, Delhi in 1982 and the petitioner became member of the Society in 1983. It was also held that even a Power of Attorney holder attracts the disqualification under Rule 25(1)(c)(i) of the aforesaid Rules and further held that even if the house was in unauthorized colony, the same was not exempted from the application of Rule 25(1)(i)(c). The Registrar therefore terminated the membership of the petitioner from the aforesaid Society and ordered refund of his share money.

4. Aggrieved with the order of the Registrar dated 07.11.1991, the petitioner challenged the same before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi by filing a Revision Petition under Section 80 of the Act, wherein the petitioner reiterated his stand as was contended before the Registrar. The Financial Commissioner rejected the Revision Petition and upheld the order of the Registrar vide the impugned order dated 16.09.1994. The relevant portion of the same is as under:-

“I do not find any force in either of the two grounds of assailment raised by the petitioner. Undeniably, a house has been constructed on the plot, purchased by his wife, which is available for their inhabitation. It is incorrect to argue that ownership through purchase on power of Attorney has any inferiority in the title of ownership and does not come in the way for disqualification. I hold with the learned Registrar that the intention of the Rule under reference is to debar anybody, already having a shelter from becoming a member of a housing society. Similarly, the exemption under Rule 25 has been extended only in case of ancestral property, measuring less than 80 square yards, falling in a notified slum area. Here, in this case, the property in question was acq