JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the only point that requires consideration is the interpretation of Rule 25 (1) (c) (i) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, as they originally stood, (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules ). The said Rule, to the extent it is relevant for the purposes of this case, is set out herein below:-

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are that on 13. 08. 1991 a show cause notice was issued by the Registrar Cooperative societies to the petitioner under Rule 25 (4) of the said Rules calling upon him to show cause as to why his membership be not terminated. The purported reason for such cessation of membership was that as per the MCD records, the petitioner's wife Smt. Sunita Rani "owned" property No. B-1757/3, Shastri Nagar, Delhi in her name and as a result of which the petitioner incurred disqualification as per Rule 25 (l) (c) (i) of the said Rules. A reply was submitted by the petitioner on 26. 08. 1991. In the said reply it was stated that the property No. B-1757/3 Shastri Nagar was a joint property measuring 100 sq. yards being owned by his wife Smt. Sunita Rani and his brother Sh. Kishan Kumar in equal shares and the share of his wife was only to the extent of 50 sq. yds. , in the said plot. It was also contended that the property in question was situated in Shastri Nagar, which was a 'congested' area and, therefore, did not affect his membership.

(3.) THE said reply was considered by the Registrar who passed the impugned order dated 16. 05. 1992. Before passing the said order, the registrar gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the society. At the time of hearing before the Registrar, two points were urged on behalf of the petitioner. The first point that was taken was that his wife was not the owner of the said property and the same had only been taken on lease from one Sh. Ram Babu and Ram Kishan vide lease agreement dated 15. 7. 1974. It was also stated that the sale deed has not been executed till date. It was, therefore, contended that petitioner's wife, in the absence of a validly executed registered deed, could not be considered to be the owner of the property, in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The second point urged by the petitioner before the Registrar was that, in any event, the disqualification had not been incurred by the petitioner on account of the fact that even if his wife Smt. Sunita Rani was considered to be the owner of the said property at Shastri Nagar, the extent of her ownership was limited to 50 sq. yards which was less than 80 sq. yards equivalent to 67 sq. metres as indicated in the proviso to Rule 25 (l) (c) (i ). . Both these points were opposed by the society.