LORD BUILDER PVT. LTD Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2006 which has endorsed the finding of the trial Judge dated 11.04.2005 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff i.e. M/s Lord Builders Pvt. Ltd. against the two defendants (seeking a declaration and mandatory injunction to the effect that the Defendant No. 2 society has been wrongly registered with defendant No. 1; decree of declaration had been sought declaring that this order of defendant No. 1 registering defendant No. 2 as an association under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act') be declared illegal and void; defendant No. 1 be directed to deregister defendant No. 2) had been dismissed. The impugned judgment had endorsed this finding.

(2.) The plaintiff is a company duly registered under the Indian Companies Act; it is the owner of the building Rajender Jaina Tower-I, situated in 18 Wazirpur Community Centre, Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. Plaintiff had licensed individual spaces to different persons as per the agreements signed between the concerned parties. Some illegal occupants of the building had formed an illegal association i.e. defendant No. 2 and by a mispresentation has got itself registered with defendant No. 1. It is averred that Section 20 of the said Act deals with the various societies which may be registered and a society dealing with the maintenance of a building is not permitted such a registration. Attention has been drawn to Ex.PW- 1/3 & Ex.PW-1/4 which are letters dated 26.05.2001 and 10.06.2001. It is pointed out that Ex. PW-1/4 is a letter addressed by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff wherein certain conditions of maintenance have been mentioned. It is pointed out that the maintenance of a building cannot be the object of a society registered under Section 20 of the said Act. Attention has also been drawn to the provisions of Section 4(7)(8) of the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Apartment '). It is pointed out that an association can be registered only in terms of the Apartment Act; maintenance of a building does not come within the definition of 'Social Welfare' which has been relied upon in the impugned judgment to dismiss the claim of the plaintiff. This is a perversity. It is liable to be set aside.

(3.) This is a second appeal. It has been admitted and on 15.11.2006, the following two substantial questions of law had been formulated.