I.R. HINGORANI Vs. PRAVINCHANDRA KANTILAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three applications have been heard together, because they raise a common question in regard to the interpretation of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts in application No, 2048 of 1963 are as under. Respondent No. 1 in this application is a member of Shalimar Co -operative Housing Society. As such member he is the holder of a flat on the fifth floor of Shalimar building, which belongs to the society. On. April 24, 1959, there was a leave and license agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, by which respondent No. 1 allowed the petitioner to occupy his flat on payment of monthly compensation of Rs. 250 for a period of eleven months. Respondent No. 1 subsequently revoked the leave granted to the petitioner to occupy the flat and on March 8, 1963, called upon the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises and also to pay arrears of compensation due from him. As the petitioner did not vacate the flat, respondent No. 1 made an application to the Registrar that the dispute should be decided under the provisions of the Act. In this application he asked for possession of the flat, Rs. 3,250 as arrears of compensation and also future compensation until possession had been delivered. The Assistant Registrar, after going through the application made by respondent No. 1, passed an order that a dispute within the meaning of Section 91(7) of the Act existed and, therefore, referred this dispute for decision to the nominee mentioned in his order. Notice was then issued to the petitioner. He appeared before the nominee and filed a written statement, in which he contended that the nominee had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. It appears that the petitioner thereafter addressed a letter to the Assistant Registrar in the matter. On November 12, 1963, he was informed by the Assistant Registrar that the question whether the matter fell within the purview of Section 91 of the Act had been already considered before referring the same to the Registrar's nominee and that consequently the petitioner's application had been filed. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present special civil application in this Court, in which he has prayed that the order of reference made by the Assistant Registrar as well as the proceedings pending before the nominee should be quashed.

(2.) IN the other application No, 1249 of 1964, respondent No. 3 is a member of the Nirmal Co -operative Housing Society, respondent No. 4. As a member of the Society respondent No. 4, he had been allotted a flat on the second floor of the society's building. On August 23, 1960, respondent No. 3 gave the fiat on leave and license basis to the petitioner. On the same day the petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No. 8, in which the terms of agreement are mentioned. In this letter he has stated that permission had been given to him to occupy the flat from August 23, 1960, on leave and license basis on payment of Rs. 125 per month for the use of the premises. On November 27, 1963, the Society respondent No. 4 gave a notice to respondent No. 3 calling upon respondent No. 3 to quit, vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the flat to the society, as he had not been residing in the flat allotted to him and had parted with its possession in contravention of by law 78. On February 3, 1964, respondent No. 3 gave a notice to the petitioner canceling and revoking the leave and license granted to him to occupy the flat and called upon him to quit, vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the flat to respondent No. 3. In July 1964, he made an application to the Registrar requesting that the dispute may be referred for decision under Sections 91 to 96 of the Act. he asked for an order directing the petitioner to quit, vacate and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the flat. He also prayed for arrears of compensation as well as future compensation. On August 4, 1964, the Assistant Registrar passed an order stating that he was satisfied that a dispute within the meaning of Section 91 of the Act existed and referred the same for decision to his nominee respondent No. 2. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court. In his application he has prayed that the order made by the Assistant Registrar respondent No. 1 referring the dispute for decision, to his nominee should be set aside.

(3.) SECTION 91 of the Act is in the following terms: 91. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, elections of the office bearers, conduct of general meetings, management or business of a society shall be referred by any of the' parties to the dispute, or by a federal society to which the society is affiliated, or by a creditor of the society, to the Registrar, if both the parties thereto are one or other' of the followings: - (a) a society, its committee, any past committee, any past or - present officer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant or nominee, heir or legal represents live of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased servant of the society, or the Liquidator of the society; (b) a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or a deceased member of a society, or a society which is a member of the society; (c) a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society, or with whom the society has or had transactions under the provisions of Section 45, and any person claiming through such a person; (d) a surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society under Section 45, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; (e) any other society, or the Liquidator of such a society. (2) When any question arises whether for the purposes of the foregoing Sub -section, a matter referred to for decision is a dispute or not, the question shall be considered by the Registrar, whose decision shall be final. (3) Save as otherwise provided under Sub -section (3) of Section 93, no Court shall have any jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in Sub -section (1). Explanation 1. -A dispute between the Liquidator of a society and the members of the same society shall not be referred to the Registrar under the provisions of Sub -section (1). Explanation 2. -For the purposes of this sub -section, a dispute shall include - (i) a claim by or against a society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or due from it to a member, past member or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member, or servant or employee whether such a debt or demand be admitted or not; (ii) a claim by a surety for any sum or demand due to him from the principal borrower in respect of a loan by a society and recovered from the surety owing to the default of the principal borrower, whether such a sum or demand be admitted or not; (iii) a claim by a society for an3' loss caused to it by a member, past member or deceased member, by any officer, past officer or deceased officer, by any agent, past agent or deceased agent, or by any servant, past servant or deceased servant, or by its committee, past or present, whether such loss be admitted or not; (iv) a refusal or failure by a member, past member or a nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member, to deliver possession to a society of land or any other asset resumed by it for breach of conditions of the assignment. Rule 75 of the rules made under the Act states that a reference of a dispute under Section 91 shall be made in writing to the Registrar in Form P. Sub -section (1) of Section 93 states that if the Registrar is satisfied that any matter referred to him or brought to his notice is a dispute within the meaning of Section 91, the Registrar shall subject to the rules decide the dispute himself or refer it for disposal to a nominee or Board of Nominees appointed by the Registrar. Section 96 states that when a dispute is referred to arbitration, the Registrar or his Nominee or Board of Nominees may, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties to the dispute to be heard, make an award on the dispute.