1991 (2) TMI 407 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the agreement dated 11.6.1969 was one of lease or of leave and licence.
2. Whether the Cooperative Court had jurisdiction over the matter.
3. Whether section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

1. Lease or Leave and Licence:
The first issue to be decided was whether the agreement dated 11.6.1969 was one of lease or of leave and licence. The agreement explicitly referred to the appellant as a "licensee" and stated that the appellant would not claim any tenancy or sub-tenancy. The Court held that the intention of the parties was to create a licence, not a lease, as the appellant was given the use of the flat along with fittings, furniture, etc., without creating any interest in the property. The Court emphasized that the substance of the agreement, rather than the terminology used, determines its nature. The Court concluded that the agreement was a leave and licence, not a lease, and thus the appellant was not entitled to protection under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.

2. Jurisdiction of Cooperative Court:
The second issue was whether the Cooperative Court had jurisdiction over the matter. Section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act provides that any dispute touching the business of a society shall be referred to a cooperative court if both parties are members or have a relationship with the society. The Court held that the matter of eviction of the appellant by the tenant co-partner member of the society touched the business of the society. The Court referenced previous judgments, including O.N. Bhatnagar v. Smt. Rukibai Narsindas, which held that disputes involving nominal members of a cooperative society fall within the purview of section 91(1). The Court concluded that the Cooperative Court had jurisdiction in this matter.

3. Constitutionality of Section 91:
The third issue was whether section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appellant contended that section 91 was unconstitutional to the extent it applied to persons who were not members of cooperative societies. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the appellant was involved in a dispute touching the business of the society and was a nominal member by virtue of the agreement of leave and licence. The Court held that section 91 was not ultra vires Article 14.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, concluding that the agreement was a leave and licence, the Cooperative Court had jurisdiction, and section 91 was constitutional. The interim orders were vacated, and no order as to costs was made.