Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pimpri Refugee Industrial Co-operative Society, challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court which decreed the suit filed by the respondent, Parmanand Bhimandas Talreja, for possession of a shop premises. The respondent claimed to be a tenant under an agreement dated 9-5-1999 executed by the society. The society contended that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, that the agreement was unregistered and could not be relied upon, and that the respondent ought to have challenged the resolution cancelling the agreement. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the notice requirement under Section 164 is procedural and can be waived, and since the society did not raise the objection at the earliest opportunity, it was deemed to have waived it. The court further held that an unregistered document can be used for collateral purposes, such as proving the terms of possession. Regarding the resolution, the court observed that if the resolution was void, it need not be challenged separately. The concurrent findings of fact were not shown to be perverse, and the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Societies - Notice under Section 164 - Mandatory Requirement - Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 requires a two-month notice before instituting a suit against a society in respect of its business. The plaint must contain a statement that such notice has been given. In the present case, the plaint did not contain such statement, but the issue was not raised at the earliest opportunity and the society participated in the trial. The court held that the requirement is procedural and can be waived, and the suit was not barred. (Paras 3-5) B) Evidence Act - Unregistered Document - Admissibility for Collateral Purpose - An unregistered agreement can be relied upon for collateral purposes, such as proving the nature of possession or the relationship between parties, even if it is not admissible as a contract of tenancy. The court relied on the agreement dated 9-5-1999 to determine the terms of possession. (Para 6) C) Co-operative Societies - Resolution Cancelling Agreement - Need to Challenge - When a resolution cancelling an agreement is void ab initio or without jurisdiction, it need not be challenged separately. The respondent's suit for restoration of possession based on tenancy rights was maintainable without challenging the resolution, as the resolution was not binding. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit was barred for want of notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; whether the unregistered agreement dated 9-5-1999 could be relied upon; whether the respondent could seek restoration of possession without challenging the resolution cancelling the agreement.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Notice under Section 164 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960 is mandatory before filing suit against society
- but requirement is procedural and can be waived
- unregistered agreement can be relied upon for collateral purposes
- suit for possession based on tenancy rights does not require challenging resolution cancelling agreement if resolution is void.
