HAJI MAMMU KEYE Vs. THIRURANGADI P C C SOCIETY
LAWS(KER)-1963-7-17
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on July 24,1963

HAJI MAMMU KEYE Appellant
VERSUS
THIRURANGADI P.C.C. SOCIETY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SEKHARAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1976-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN DANIEL VS. RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(KER)-1969-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
COTTAGE INDUSTRIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. RAMASWAMI ACHARI [LAWS(KER)-1965-6-49] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE appellant is the owner of a godown, and the respondent a co-operative society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 was his tenant. THE lease was denied by the respondent. It has been found to be true and binding by both the courts below.
(2.)THE controversy at present relates only to the respondent's liability for rent from 30 61955 to 2612 1956, the date on which the appellant got possession of the premises in pursuance of an interim decree. THE answer to the dispute depends on whether there was a valid termination of the lease when the respondent surrendered the key to the appellant by the end of June 1955. THE respondent's case is that the key was first sent to the appellant through a peon on 28 61955, that the appellant refused to accept it, that it was thereupon sent to the appellant by registered post, that the appellant still refused it, that it was thereafter produced in court on 23 111955 along with the written statement, that the appellant continued his refusal to to accept the key, and that the respondent then took it back from the court in pursuance of a direction therefrom. THE appellant's contention is that he was not bound to accept the key when it was sent through the peon or sent by registered post as the entire rent of the godown from the date of the lease was then in arrears, and that the deposit of the key in court along with the written statement is also of no avail as the respondent chose to take back the key subsequent to the deposit.
We are in agreement with the submission made by the appellant, and hold that the rent from 30-6-1955 to 26-12-1956 is due to him from the respondent. The lease in this case has to be treated as a lease from month to month terminable as provided in S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 "on the part of either lessor or lessee, by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. " No such notice has been set up or proved.

The further contention of the respondent is that even if the position is as stated above, no decree can be given by a civil court in view of S. 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932. This contention seems to have been raised as a preliminary point before the trial court and negatived by an order dated 20-11-1956. It was apparently not urged before the lower appellate court and there is no reference to it in the judgment of the learned District Judge.

(3.)THE relevant portion of S. 51 of the Madras co-operative Societies Act, 1932, reads as follows: " (1) If any dispute touching the business of a registered society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid servant of the society) arises (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or servant of the society. such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision " It is common ground that the appellant is a member of the respondent society, and that one of the objects of the society, as can be seen from Ext. B. 1, is "to rent or own godowns for the stocking of paddy or rice or foodgrains or other articles purchased. " In these circumstances it is not possible to say that the dispute is not between a person who is a member of the society or that it is not a dispute touching the business of the society.
The dispute is a dispute between the society and the owner of a godown who happens to be a member of the society. The dispute has nothing to do with his membership of the society. It is certainly not a dispute between the society and a member qua member. The question for determination is whether the dispute should be between the society and a member qua member for coming within the ambit of S. 51 of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1912.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.