ELECTRICAL CABLE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION Vs. ARUN COMMERCIAL PREMISES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The claim of the appellants is that an association which was an unregistered body known as "Indian Cables Maker's Association" was inducted in the year 1969 as a tenant in the premises Room No. 503, 5th Floor, Arun Chambers, Tradeo, Bombay by respondent No. 2 under an agreement termed as leave and licence dated 23rd September, 1969 at a rental of Rs. 1500/- out of which Rs. 1000/- was towards the premises and rent of Rs. 500/- p.m. was payable towards furniture and fixtures; that the name of the appellant was changed from Indian Cable Maker's Association into M/s. Electrical Cable Development Association also another un-registered body in the month of August 1972 and with the said association also a similar leave and licence agreement was executed by the respondent No. 2 on a rental of Rs. 1750/- p.m. out of which rent of Rs. 1,000/- was towards the premises and Rs. 750/- towards fixtures and furniture; that in the year 1976 the unregistered body decided to convert itself into a company in order to carry on its affairs more effectively and so registered as such under the Companies Act, 1956; that respondent No. 2 continued to receive rents from appellant in respect of the said premises. The appellant had also been using parking space in the building in question and had been making regular payments to respondent No. 1 Society; that the appellant filed a suit for declaration in the year 1981 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay that they are tenants in respect of the suit premises; that the second respondent filed a suit bearing No. 210/296 of 1981 seeking for eviction of the appellant; that when those proceedings were pending, Respondent No. 2 agged upon respondent No. 1 to raise a dispute in terms of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the purpose of evicting the appellant to enable respondent No. 2 to get the said premises and use personally through an arbitrator; that the Arbitrator made an award on 23-3-1990 directing eviction of the appellant and that the second respondent be directed to use the suit premises personally; that the appellant filed an appeal against the said award before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court which was further dismissed by an order made on 8-1-1991; that a writ petition was thereafter preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay; that by an order made on 2-4-1991 the High Court upheld the order made by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court and dismissed the writ petition however giving time to the appellant to vacate the premises by about a month. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(2.) On 20th August, 1991, this Court made an order calling for a report from appellate Court after giving an opportunity to the appellant to examine such of its witnesses as are considered necessary to prove the receipts and the agreement and allow the respondent also a similar opportunity of rebuttal by leading evidence both oral and documentary. A report has been received by this Court pursuant to the said order. The findings recorded by the appellate Court are against the appellant.

(3.) Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior advocate for the appellant contended that (1) the dispute between the appellant and the second respondent arising under the Bombay Rent Act is pending consideration in a Court of competent jurisdiction and, therefore, the authorities exercising powers under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act could not exercise their jurisdiction in the matter; (2) that the finding recorded by the appellate Court and affirmed by the High Court that the appellant-Company is a distinct legal entity which came into existence in 1976 and is in occupation of suit premises without any agreement of leave or licence is incorrect inasmuch as the appellant company is only a successor to the two un-registered bodies referred to earlier; and (3) that the finding recorded by the appellate Court pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 20th of August, 1991 are not correct.