Skip to content


Smt. Brij Rani Vs. Punjab Handloom Weaver Apex Co-operative Society Ltd. and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 118 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1976P& H327
ActsEast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13(2); Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 - Sections 5D and 5D(3); Reorganisation Act - Sections 70
AppellantSmt. Brij Rani
RespondentPunjab Handloom Weaver Apex Co-operative Society Ltd. and anr.
Appellant Advocate H.L. Sarin, Sr. Adv. and; M.L. Sarin, Adv.
Respondent Advocate V.K. Bhandari and; T.R. Arora, Advs.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....the scheme so certified shall be binding on all societies affected by the scheme, as well as the share-holders, creditors and employees of all such societies, subject to such financial adjustments as may be directed in this behalf under sub-section (3) but no such scheme shall be given effect to before the said day: , on the 19th of april, 1971, long before which date the transfer of the tenancy rights in favour of the haryana society had taken place but that circumstance does not stand in the way of the scheme being operative right from the first day of november, 1966. sub-section (1) of section 5-d clearly lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4)-of section 5-a or any other law for the time being in force, a scheme prepared by the board..........the punjab handloom weavers apex co-operative society limited, chandigarh (hereinafter called the punjab society) and the haryana handloom weavers apex co-operative society limited, panipat (hereinafter called the haryana society) from shop no. 4164 situated at d. c, road, sadar bazar, ambala cantt.2. the application of the landlady was based on the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting of the premises by the punjab society to the haryana society. all the arrears of rent along with costs and interest were paid by the punjab society on the first date of hearing to the landlady and the only point left in dispute between the parties then was as to whether the punjab society was liable to be ejected from the said shop on the ground that it had sublet it to the haryana society. the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

A.D. Koshal, J.

1. This is a petition by BrijRani, the landlady, under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the dismissal by the Tribunals below of her application under Section 13 of the Act for the eviction of her tenant named the Punjab Handloom Weavers Apex Co-operative Society Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the Punjab Society) and the Haryana Handloom Weavers Apex Co-operative Society Limited, Panipat (hereinafter called the Haryana Society) from shop No. 4164 situated at D. C, Road, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt.

2. The application of the landlady was based on the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting of the premises by the Punjab Society to the Haryana Society. All the arrears of rent along with costs and interest were paid by the Punjab Society on the first date of hearing to the landlady and the only point left in dispute between the parties then was as to whether the Punjab Society was liable to be ejected from the said shop on the ground that it had sublet it to the Haryana Society. The case put forward 'by the Punjab Society was that the depot being run by it in the said shop was allocated to the Haryana Society under a scheme prepared in pursuance of the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Reorganisation Act), that the allocation included the transfer of the right of tenancy in the said shop to the Haryana Society and that the transfer having taken place by operation of law no subletting could be spelt out of it.

Both the Tribunals below have accepted the stand taken by the Punjab Society to 'be correct in law and that is why the landlady has come up in revision to this Court.

3. Under Sub-clause (a) of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act a tenant is liable to ejectment if after the commencement of the Act, he transfers his right under the lease or sublets the building rented out to him, without the consent of the landlord. The transfer, envisaged by the sub-clause is thus a! voluntary transfer 'by the tenant and not a transfer which takes place by operation of law and without any act of volition onhis part. The correctness of this proposition is not objected to by Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the Landlady, whose contention, however, is that the transfer of the rights of tenancy in the said shop was made by the Punjab Society to the Haryana Society through a voluntary act and not because of the operation of any provisions of the Reorganisation Act. This contention must be repelled as being without substance. It is common ground between the parties that the transfer of tenancy rights in the said shop in favour of the Haryana Society took place by reason of a scheme prepared under the provisions of Section 5-D of the Multi-Unit Co-operative Societies Act, 1942 (hereinafter called the Multi-Unit Act) which was added thereto by Section 70 of the Reorganisation Act. Mr, Sarin concedes that the scheme in question was applicable to the Punjab Society whose name appears at serial No. 6 in the Fifteenth Schedule to the Reorganisation Act, and that it was certified by the State Government (after it had been prepared by the Board of Directors) on the 27th of October, 1966, but urges in support of his contention that the scheme did not become operative till after the transfer of the tenancy rights to the Haryana Society and that such transfer must be regarded, therefore, as having been made voluntarily by the Punjab Society and not by operation of law. He relies on the provisions of Section 5-D of the Multi-Unit Act which may be reproduced here with advantage:

'5-D. (1) Where, in respect of any Co-operative Society specified in the Fifteenth Schedule to the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 5-A would become a multi-unit co-operative society, the Board of Directors adopts, by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the directors, any scheme for the re-constitution, reorganisation or dissolution of the society, including proposals regarding-

(a) the formation of new co-operative societies and the transfer thereto, in whole or in part, of the assets and liabilities and employees of that society, or

(b) the transfer, in whole or in part, of the assets and liabilities and employees of that society to any other co-operative society in the existing State of Punjab or in the Union Territory of Himachal Pra-desh;

and the State Government of Punjab certifies the scheme at any time before the 1st day of November, 1966, then, notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) or Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) of the said section or any other law, regulation or bye-law for the time being in force in relation to that society, the scheme so certified shall be binding on all societies affected by the scheme, as well as the share-holders, creditors and employees of all such societies, subject to such financial adjustments as may be directed in this behalf under Sub-section (3) but no such scheme shall be given effect to before the said day:

Provided that where a scheme includes any proposal regarding the transfer of assets and liabilities and employees to any co-operative society referred so in Clause (b), the scheme shall not be binding on that existing society or the shareholders and creditors thereof, unless the proposal relating to such transfer is accepted by the existing society by a resolution passed by a majority of the members present at a meeting of its general body. (2) When a scheme in respect of a co-operative society is so certified, the Central Registrar shall place the scheme at a meeting, held in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, of all the persons who, immediately before the date of certification of the scheme, were members of the society, and the scheme may be approved by a resolution passed by a majority of the members present and voting at the said meeting.

(3) If the scheme is not so approved or is approved with modifications, the Central Registrar may refer the scheme to such Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as may be nominated in this behalf by the Chief Justice thereof and the Judge may direct such financial adjustments to be made among the societies affected as he deems necessary, and the scheme shall be deemed to be approved subject to those financial adjustments.

(4) If in consequence of the directions given under Sub-section (3), a society becomes liable to pay any sum of money, the successor State within whose area the society is located shall be deemed to be guarantor in respect of the payment of such money and shall be liable as such.'

It is true that the scheme was not approved under Sub-section (2) of Section 5-D and had to be referred to Tuli, J., of this Court by the Central Registrar under Sub-section (3) of that section and wasapproved subject to various financial adjustments by Tuli, J., on the 19th of April, 1971, long before which date the transfer of the tenancy rights in favour of the Haryana Society had taken place but that circumstance does not stand in the way of the scheme being operative right from the first day of November, 1966. Sub-section (1) of Section 5-D clearly lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4)-of Section 5-A or any other law for the time being in force, a scheme prepared by the Board of Directors and certified by the State Government shall be binding on all Societies affected by it. It further states that no such scheme shall be given effect to before the 1st day of November, 1966. The result is that any scheme prepared and certified before that date becomes operative as from that date even though it is approved neither under Sub-section (2) nor under Sub-section (3). The only requirement of a scheme in order that it may become operative is that it shall be prepared by the Board of Directors and certified by the State Government 'before the 1st of November, 19-66. That the scheme with which we are here concerned was so prepared and certified is, as already, stated, common ground between the parties. There was, therefore, no impediment in the way of its becoming operative as from that date. The only limitation on its operation was that it was to be subject to such financial adjustments as might be directed in that behalf under Sub-section (3). Such adjustments are a matter with which the transfer of the tenancy rights has no concern. The contention is, therefore, repelled.

4. Another contention raised by Mr. Sarin is that the scheme did not provide for any transfer of the tenancy rights in the shop in dispute in favour of the Punjab Society. The relevant clause of the scheme reads :

'Depots: The Delhi Depot be transferred to Haryana Apex Society and other depots be transferred to the respective Apex Societies in the area of which the particular depot falls.'

According to Mr. Sarin, the word 'depot' does not include the tenancy rights in the premises in which the depot was being run. However, I do not find myself in agreement with him. In the context in which it is used the word 'depot' was intended to have the widest meaning so that it would include not only the goods lying in the premises ofthe depot but also all its assets and liabi-| lities. The rights of tenancy in the shop were rights in immovable property and formed one of the valuable assets of the Punjab Society and would, therefore be transferable to the Haryana Society under the above extracted portion of the scheme.

5. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //