Membership claims in cooperative societies must be substantiated with evidence of eligibility and compliance with cooperative rules.

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. Petitions have been filed assailing the impugned order dated 19^th February 2019, passed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (‘DCT’) in Appeal No.140/2014/DCT. By the impugned order, DCT had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the award dated 18^th June 2014 passed by the Arbitrator, Registrar of Co-operative Society (‘RCS’ in Case No.225/09/DCT

2. Based on submissions of parties, the sequence of events which form the crux of the dispute are as under:

(i) Petitioner/Ranjana Kapoor claims that she was enrolled as a member of respondent no.2/Society in February 1971, in her individual right and made payment towards her requisite share money and other development charges.

(ii) Petitioner/Ranjana Kapoor claims that she participated in all general body meetings, elections and other events and has paid her dues till date, with no amount remaining pending. Her name appeared at Serial no.19 in the membership list of respondent no.2/Society, recognizing her as a valid member.

(iii) In 1977, respondent no.2/Society developed a residential housing colony known as Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi and petitioner/Ranjana Kapoor was allotted Plot No.247 (hereinafter ‘the plot’) measuring 200 sq. yds. in the housing colony, through the process of draw of lots.

(iv) By letter dated 27^th April 1997, the Land & Building Department (‘L&DO’) wrote to respondent no.2/Society approving the transfer of the membership from respondent no.1/Mani Ram to petitioner/Ranjana Kapoor, being the sister.

(v) On 06^th March 1979, a tripartite lease deed was executed between petitioner/Ranjana Kapoor, as sub-lessee, respondent no.2/Society as lessee and the President of India as principal lessor.

(vi) On 26^th April 1980, respondent no.1/Mani Ram received a notice from President of respondent no.2/Society to confirm, whether the petitioner was his sister and if he had voluntarily transferred his share to her.

(vii) Allegation was made by respondent no.1/Mani Ram regarding membership in respondent no.2/society and the fraudulent transfer of share made to petitioner/Ranjana Kapoor, basis that she was his sister, while it is an admitted position that she was, in fact, not his sister.

(viii) Vide letter dated 03^rd February 1981, L&DO sought clarifications from both the parties regarding their relationship.

(ix) In 1987, Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’) terminated the sub-lease in respect of the plot, on the ground that allotment of the plot had been carried out by submitting false and fabricated documents.

(x) A representation was filed by respondent no.1/Mani Ram on 23^rd January 1987, which culminated into an arbitration reference, directed by RCS on 18^th November 1987, basis that these disputes were covered under Section 60 of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act , 1972 (‘Co-operative Societies Act’) and, therefore, were subject to adjudication under Section 61 of the Co-operative Societies Act.

(xi) The arbitrator heard all parties to the dispute, and concluded that a conspiracy had been hatched by which, petitioner/Ranjana Kapoor had become a member of respondent no.2/Society fraudulently, and had illegally transferred the membership of respondent no.1/Mani Ram in her own name. The arbitral award dated 14^th December 1988, recommended that membership must be terminated, allotment of the plot to be cancelled and further action to be taken. Respondent no.1/Mani Ram had become a member of respondent no.2/Society in 1965 and was held as entitled to retain his membership. An objection was raised by petitioner/Ranjana Kapoor, that the money deposited by respondent no.1/Mani Ram was withdrawn in 1971 voluntarily, and he therefore, ceased to be a member of respondent no.2/Society, subsequent to which, his name was removed from the list of members. Petitioner/Ranjana Kapoor, however, had insisted that she had become a member of respondent no.2/Society in an individual