Allowed

Mrs. Mubeen R Betaraj v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Aug 2024WP/9039/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the rejection of a flat purchaser's application for membership of a co-operative housing society, which had been refused solely because a suit over the flat was pending before the City Civil Court. As that suit was dismissed for want of prosecution and not restored, the High Court quashed the appellate and revisional orders and directed allotment of society membership to

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed and set aside; Application No.55 of 2019 allowed; Society directed to allot membership to petitioner.

Mrs. Mubeen R Betaraj vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

66-WP-9039-2024-Corrected.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.9039 OF 2024

¶4

Mrs.Mubeen R. Betaraj …. Petitioner

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …. Respondents

¶7

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2024.08.28 10:43:25 +0530

¶8

Mr.Vishwajeet Kapse a/w Ms.Kartavya Oswal, for the Petitioner. Ms.V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.

¶9

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.

¶10

DATE : 23^rd AUGUST 2024

¶11

P.C:-

¶12

. This Petition takes exception to the orders dated 8^th December 2020 passed in Appeal No.55 of 2019 and 28^th April 2022 passed in Revision Application No.42 of 2021 whereby the claim of the Petitioner for declaration as a member of the Respondent no.4-Society stood rejected.

¶13

A notice was issued to the Respondents for final hearing of the Petition at the stage of the admission. All Respondents are duly served, absent. This indicates that, contesting Respondents have no inclination to oppose the

¶14

This order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 27-08-2024

¶15

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 5

¶16

66-WP-9039-2024-Corrected.doc

¶17

Petition.

¶18

It is the case of the Petitioner that, she entered into an agreement for the purchase of the flat bearing No.502, Ramdarshan, Yashwant Nagar, Vakola, Santracruz (E), Mumbai400 055 on 2^nd April 2009. It is claimed by her that, Respondent No.5-Developer gave possession of the said premises to her husband after receipt of the entire consideration on 17^th April 2009. It is claimed that, there were disputes between the parties with regard to the demand of the extra money by the developer and even Criminal complaints came to be lodged in this regard.

¶19

It is further claimed that Saeed Shah Mohammed

¶20

Khan had filed suit bearing No.4567 of 2009, at the instance of Respondent No.5 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for possession of the subject flat. The said suit came to be dismissed by order dated 2^nd September 2015 and this order has attained finality. A suit also came to be filed bearing No.3524 of 2015 by Developer which came to be dismissed on 10^th February 2017.

¶21

This order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 27-08-2024

¶22

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 5

¶23

66-WP-9039-2024-Corrected.doc

¶24

An Application was moved by the Petitioner before

¶25

the Society for membership. This Application was rejected hence the proceedings under provisions of Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act (for short ‘Societies Act’) being Application No.55 of 2009 came to be filed unsuccessfully. The Revisional Authority has also upheld the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, hence this Petition.

¶26

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, on the sole ground that there is pendency of the suit before the City Civil Court in respect of the subject flat, it is held that, there is serious dispute with regard to the ownership of the said flat and the same has resulted into rejection of his Application. It is his submission that, the suit bearing No.954 of 2021 has been dismissed for want of prosecution by the City Civil Court on 22^nd November 2022. In response to specific query made by this Court with regard to the order of dismissal of the suit being set aside by any Court and restoration of the said suit, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, from the Petitioner who is present in this Court makes solemn statement that the suit

¶27

This order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 27-08-2024

¶28

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 5

¶29

66-WP-9039-2024-Corrected.doc

¶30

has not been restored till date. He further undertakes to file affidavit of the Petitioner to that effect in this Court. His statement is accepted.

¶31

Perusal of the record indicates that, there is registered agreement under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 executed in favour of the Petitioner by developer. There is no dispute made by the society with regard to the fact that the Petitioner is in possession of the flat and the maintenance bills are also raised against the Petitioner, which are being duly paid by the Petitioner till date. Even, otherwise Respondent society had only asked for the copy of agreement in respect of the flat in question and letter of possession letter from Developer.

¶32

Needless to say that, the purpose of letter from Developer of possession would be only to ensure that entire consideration is paid and possession has been received by the Petitioner of the flat in question. The dismissal of the suit filing by the developer against the Petitioner confirms the fact that no dispute survives between them. The Petitioner is a lady aged about 79 years. In the peculiar facts of the case, this Court does

¶33

This order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 27-08-2024

¶34

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 5

¶35

66-WP-9039-2024-Corrected.doc

¶36

not find it appropriate to call upon the Petitioner to approach the Assistant Registrar for placing these facts on record indicates dismissal of the suit etc.

¶37

Since, the Application of the Petitioner was rejected solely on the ground of pendency of the suit and since the said ground no more exist, there is no impledment to allow Application for membership of Petitioner. Impugned order therefore are quashed and set aside. Application No.55 of 2019, stands allowed. Respondent Society is directed to allot membership of the Society to the Petitioner. Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c).

¶38

All pending Civil/Interim Applications are disposed

¶39

of.

¶40

This order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 27-08-2024 N.S. Kamble page 5 of 5

Mrs. Mubeen R Betaraj v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Mubeen R Betaraj v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandrakant Sitaram Marathe and Ors. Vs Smt. Indira Sitaram Narvekar Decd by Lhrs and Ors.

Clint Rodrigues vs Convent View Co-Op Hsg Society Ltd. and Ors.

Bhausaheb Gangadhar Pinjan vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Additional Collector and Ors.

Mohammed Faisal Shaikh Aslam and Other vs the State of Maharashtra

Pappu @ Mashnaji Vitthal Chintamwad and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mahalaxmi Mahila Bachat Gat Throu. It Poa Mr. Anil Bhanudas Gavli vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Food Civil Supply Dept and O Rs