O. N. Bhatnagar v. Smt. Rukibai Narsindas & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided

21 April 1982

Case no.

0

Bench

Sen,A.P. (J)

Facts

The Shyam Cooperative Housing Society, constituted under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, had Smt. Rukibai N. Bhavnani as a copartner tenant member of flat No. 52. The petitioner was inducted into the flat under a Leave and Licence agreement dated November 28, 1961, which was renewed periodically. The last agreement expired on February 28, 1965. Following the expiration, Rukibai issued a notice on March 31, 1965, demanding the petitioner vacate the premises, claiming his occupation had become unlawful. The cooperative court ruled in favor of Rukibai on April 28, 1978, granting her possession and arrears of rent. Subsequent appeals by the petitioner were dismissed, leading to a writ petition in the High Court, which was also rejected. The petitioner then sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Petitioner Arguments

The petitioner argued that the claim for ejectment was not a dispute under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, as he was not in a landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent. He contended that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act should take precedence due to the non-obstante clause in Section 28, which he believed barred the cooperative court from adjudicating the matter. The court, however, found that the nature of the relationship and the specific provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act applied, thus rejecting the petitioner's arguments.

Respondent Arguments

The respondent maintained that the claim for ejectment was indeed a dispute under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. They argued that the petitioner’s occupation had become unlawful following the termination of the Leave and Licence agreement. The court agreed with the respondent, emphasizing that the cooperative society had the right to seek ejectment under the relevant provisions of the Act, and that the Rent Act did not preclude such proceedings.

Precedents considered

The court distinguished the case from Deccan Merchant's Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors., where different circumstances applied. The court noted that the relationship between the parties in this case did not fit the landlord-tenant framework, thus allowing for the application of the Cooperative Societies Act.

Legal principles

The court considered the definitions and scope of "dispute" under Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and the implications of the non-obstante clause in Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. It was determined that the cooperative society's right to eject a nominal member was valid under the Cooperative Societies Act, and the Rent Act's provisions did not apply in this context.

Decision and reasoning

Rationale

The court reasoned that the nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was governed by the cooperative society's rules and the Leave and Licence agreement. The court emphasized the importance of the cooperative framework in resolving disputes among members and upheld the cooperative court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the ejectment claim.

Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The court upheld the cooperative court's award for possession and arrears of rent, confirming that the proceedings were valid under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the jurisdiction of cooperative courts in disputes involving members of cooperative societies, clarifying the applicability of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act over the Bombay Rent Act in such contexts. It highlights the importance of cooperative governance and the legal framework surrounding member relationships within housing societies.

Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)