for any society to refuse membership on the ground that the construction which has been carried out by the builder is unauthorised and in contravention of the provisions of section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. Whether the construction is authorised or unauthorised is a matter which is matter of Civil dispute and has to be determined by the Civil Court and neither the co-operative society nor the Deputy Registrar nor Divisional Joint Registrar is empowered to go into the aforesaid issue at all for determining whether a person is entitled to be a member or not. In my opinion, a membership of the society has to be considered only on the rules, regulations and bye-laws and not on the basis of external factors such as whether the construction of the premises which is sought to be purchased by him is legal, illegal or authorised or unauthorised. In my opinion, the issue as to the validity of the construction is expressly required to be determined by the Civil Court and till such determination is made, the society as well as the authorities are not entitled and/or justified in refusing to grant membership to a person. In the present case even the construction is according to the sanctioned plans and the plans are sanctioned by the B.M.C. in respect of the premises namely office No. 1601 which the petitioner has sought to purchase from the Income-tax Authorities in auction sale. However, the contention is that the sanction by the Corporation is illegal because it is being done without the consent of the premises purchasers under section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. In my opinion, such a dispute is not within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar to determine and the society is also not empowered to refuse the membership on such a contention. If the office is constructed by breach of any provisions of law by the builder then the remedy is by way of a suit which in the present case is already preferred and pending in this Court. It is not open for the society to reject the membership on the aforesaid ground. In the present case the Divisional Joint Registrar while exercising the power of revision under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act has in fact upheld the refusal of the membership on such a ground which in my opinion is totally illegal and without authority of law. That decision is outside the purview of the Divisional Joint Registrar while determining under the provisions of sections 22(2) and 23 of the Act that whether a person in entitled to be a member or not of any society. In my opinion, therefore, the present petition must succeed. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar dated 6-9-2001 is set aside and the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 18-5-1998 is confirmed. Petition is made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
