Summary
The Supreme Court recognised the legal heirs of a long-standing occupant of a flat as members of a co-operative housing society despite their very late payment of the membership contribution. The society had offered membership and resolved in 2005 to admit their predecessor, the heirs had pursued statutory remedies, and the general body later ratified their membership and the transfer to a purchaser. The High Court's contrary directions were set aside, leaving objecting members free to seek enhanced interest.
Issues
- Whether the successors of the original tenant-occupant of a flat could be admitted as members of the co-operative housing society on a highly belated payment of the contribution.
- Whether the Divisional Joint Registrar acted in excess of jurisdiction in directing that membership be granted, as the High Court held.
- What is the effect of the general body's later ratification of the membership and of the transfer of the flat to a subsequent purchaser?
Provisions considered
- Sections 23(2) and 154, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960After the Authorised Officer declined to decide their membership application, the appellants appealed to the Deputy Registrar under Section 23(2) and then sought revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 154. The Court held that, having availed these statutory remedies, the grant of membership in revision could not be treated as in excess of jurisdiction. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 44)
- Section 152, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960Members appealed under this section against the Deputy Registrar's appointment of an Authorised Officer to manage the society. The appeal was dismissed, the High Court also dismissed the challenge, and the Supreme Court did not disturb that part of the order. (¶¶ 11, 12, 19, 46)
Held
- The successors' possession of the flat, held by their predecessor as tenant for decades, had never been questioned. The society's 1995 offer of membership on payment of the contribution had not been withdrawn, and the 2005 AGM had resolved to admit the predecessor on payment. Denying membership to occupants who remained in lawful possession would create a serious anomaly and continuing friction within the society. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42)
- The High Court was wrong to hold that the Joint Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction. The appellants first applied to the Authorised Officer, who declined to decide, and only then availed the statutory appeal and revision under the Act. The general body's AGM of 30th September 2025 had in any event ratified their membership. (¶¶ 43, 44)
- The equitable course was to recognise the successors as members. Their subsequent registered transfer of the flat, and the transferee's admission as a member ratified by the general body, must therefore also stand recognised. (¶¶ 43, 45)
- Because of the significant delay in paying the contribution, aggrieved members may apply to the appropriate authority for an additional amount by way of enhanced interest, and any challenge to the September 2025 AGM decision is to be examined on its own merits. (¶¶ 47, 48)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; the High Court's judgment set aside to the extent of its directions quashing the grant of membership and requiring a fresh general meeting decision; aggrieved members at liberty to seek enhanced interest, and parties free to pursue other remedies; no costs.