MEERAN UNNI Vs. KOTTAYAM DIST CO OPERATIVE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has come up before a Full Bench on reference by a Division Bench for decision on the question whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement to grant a lease of a shop building by the defendant (the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank) to the plaintiff is barred under section 69(1)(f) and section 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Act 21 of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The defendant is a society registered under the Act. The plaintiff is not a member of the Society. He had been carrying on trade in a room on the ground floor of a building belonging to the defendant-Society on a monthly rent of Rs. 12.50. The defendant-Society with a view to reconstruct the building requested the plaintiff to surrender possession of the shop-room in his occupation. It was agreed between the parties that after the reconstruction the plaintiff will be put in possession of a shop-room on the ground floor of the reconstructed building having more or less an equal area as was in his occupation. The plaintiff surrendered possession of the shop-room, but on reconstruction of the building, the defendant-Society declined to put the plaintiff in possession of a shop-room for his trade even though other tenants who had also vacated on the request of the plaintiff were allotted rooms in the reconstructed building. As per the agreement the rent payable in respect of the shop-room in the reconstructed building is to be fixed afresh. The plaintiff claimed damages Rs. 25,000/- in case it is found that the agreement between the parties cannot be specifically enforced.

(3.) The defendant-Society contended that the contract between the parties has become frustrated as the building could not be reconstructed within the stipulated time. The plaintiffs shop was on the western side of the demolished building adjoining a public road and as per the Kerala Municipal Buildings Rules the defendant had to leave a margin of three metres between the road and the building. The space occupied by the plaintiff in the building let out had to be kept as vacant land and hence the contract between the parties has become impossible of performance. The defendant denied liability for damages, and raised a further contention that the suit is barred under section 69(1)(f) and section 100 of the Act.