The dispute, originally filed in 1988, has spanned nearly 38 years and involves Ravikiran Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., situated at Jaywantrao Sawant Road, opposite the railway crossing, Dahisar (West), Mumbai, and M/s. Y.D. Enterprises, the owner of Shop Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground floor of the society building. The shops house Swagat Restaurant and Bar.

Chronological Sequence of Events

• Prior to the registration of the society, M/s. Y.D. Enterprises (then a partnership firm) purchased Shop Nos. 1 and 2 from the builder M/s. Vijaylaxmi Constructions by agreement dated 8 December 1985. The firm obtained the builder’s permission on 18 February 1986 to run a restaurant and beer bar/permit room and commenced business.
• The society was registered on 23 October 1986. The firm’s name appeared as a promoter member (status “Firm”) in the registration proposal submitted on 20 October 1986. Share certificates were later issued in the name of M/s. Y.D. Enterprises.
• On 20 October 1988, the society’s managing committee passed a resolution terminating the tenancy and occupancy rights of the opponent in respect of the shops. The society claimed arrears of ₹15,642.15 as on 30 September 1988, illegal use of open space, nuisance (orchestra, late-night noise, parking, coal bhattis, employees using open spaces for bathing, etc.), and unauthorised constructions (kitchen, RCC roof over duct, water tank, electric pole).
• Shortly thereafter, the society filed Dispute No. CC/IV/1318/1988 (later renumbered CC/III/312/2014) before the Co-operative Court, Mumbai, seeking a declaration that occupancy rights stood terminated, eviction, recovery of dues, injunction against transfer, and mandatory injunction for removal of nuisance and illegal constructions. Initially the dispute was filed only against Shri D.P. Joshi as sole proprietor of M/s. Y.D. Enterprises.
• On 22 September 1992, D.P. Joshi filed a detailed written statement denying membership in his personal capacity, asserting that the firm was the member, that all constructions and the restaurant business pre-dated the society’s registration, that dues had been paid, and that the dispute was not maintainable under Section 91 of the MCS Act.
• On 18 January 1993, the firm was registered as a partnership (Registration No. BA56078) with partners D.P. Joshi, Suraj Shetty and Sunita Shetty. Joshi later claimed retirement on 31 July 1992. A letter dated 3 May 1991 (acknowledged by the society) had already informed the society of the partnership.
• In 2015, after more than 25 years, the society amended the dispute and impleaded M/s. Y.D. Enterprises as Opponent No. 2. Additional written statements were filed reiterating the earlier defences and contending that the 1988 managing committee resolution was void.
• Society led evidence of its then secretary Uday Narayan Sardal (affidavit 20 January 2006) and honorary chairman M.K. Tailor (Exh.39). Cross-examination of the society’s witnesses produced several admissions. Opponents did not lead evidence after the firm was added; their cross-examination of the society’s second witness was closed by order dated 1 November 2019.
• On 12 January 2023, the Co-operative Court No. 3, Mumbai, allowed the dispute. It directed the opponents to hand over vacant possession of the shops within three months, restrained transfer of the premises, ordered payment of ₹15,642.15 plus further dues from 1 October 1988 till possession, and granted related reliefs.
• M/s. Y.D. Enterprises filed Appeal No. 16 of 2025. The appeal was decided on 9 July 2026.

Society’s Case (as pleaded and argued)

The society contended that D.P. Joshi / the firm was a persistent defaulter; that the restaurant caused continuous nuisance to residents (noise, liquor-related quarrels, parking inside premises, smoke from coal bhattis, employees misusing open spaces and toilets); that open space belonging to the society was illegally used as a garden/service area; that unauthorised constructions (kitchen blocking ventilation, RCC roof and water tank over duct, electric pole) had been carried out without permission; and that the managing committee validly terminated occupancy rights by the 20 October 1988 resolution. It claimed the right to seek vacant possession under the MCS Act and bye-laws.

In appeal, the society argued that the appeal was not maintainable, that Seema Sanjeeva Shetty (who claimed to represent the firm) had no locus, that M/s. Y.D. Enterprises was a sole proprietorship of D.P. Joshi (not a partnership), that opponents had admitted illegal constructions, that they failed to examine the builder, and that the trial court order was correctly passed after full opportunity.

Defence of M/s. Y.D. Enterprises / D.P. Joshi

The opponents maintained throughout that:

• The firm (not Joshi personally) was the member and owner of the shops.
• Business and most constructions existed prior to society registration with the builder’s consent; hence no society permission was required.
• All dues had been cleared and the firm was not a defaulter.
• The managing committee had no authority to terminate occupancy rights; expulsion required compliance with Section 35 of the MCS Act read with Rules 28 and 29 (show-cause, general body resolution with 3/4th majority, and Registrar’s approval).
• Allegations of nuisance and illegal construction could not be adjudicated under Section 91 of the MCS Act in the manner claimed.
• There was no landlord-tenant relationship; the society could not seek possession of owned commercial premises.
• The firm was a partnership and partners had not been joined as parties.

Key Findings of the Appellate Court

President Sau. S.S. Sapatnekar framed eight points for determination and answered them as follows:

1. Membership: Disputant failed to prove that D.P. Joshi was the member. The firm’s name appeared in the registration proposal as a “Firm”. Society’s own secretary admitted in cross-examination that M/s. Y.D. Enterprises was the member, share certificates were issued in the firm’s name, and letters were addressed to the firm. Documentary evidence (Register of Firms extract, 1991 letter) established it as a registered partnership. The trial court erred in treating it as a proprietary concern. A partnership firm is not a separate legal entity and must be represented by partners; failure to join partners was a substantial flaw.
2. Arrears: Society’s own secretary admitted on 29 January 2008 that the firm was not in arrears. The claim of ₹15,642.15 as on 30 September 1988 therefore failed.

3 & 4. Illegal construction and nuisance: These issues do not survive under Section 91 of the MCS Act. The Co-operative Court has no jurisdiction to decide the legality of constructions (that lies with civil court/BMC). Even if nuisance existed, the society’s remedy was expulsion under Section 35 after following due procedure, which was never done. The society’s secretary admitted that the firm had never been expelled and remained a member.

5. Right to vacant possession: The entire MCS Act and Rules are silent on any provision enabling a co-operative society to claim vacant possession of a member’s owned premises. There is no lessor-lessee relationship. The trial court treated owners as tenants and granted an eviction decree without any statutory foundation. When specifically asked, the society’s counsel fairly conceded that no such provision exists in the Act or Rules.
6. Recovery of ₹15,642.15: Failed in view of the admission of clearance of dues.
7. Interference: Called for. The trial court judgment was based on wrong assumptions of fact and law and ignored admissions and documents.

The Appellate Court relied on Supreme Court precedents distinguishing partnership firms from proprietary concerns (Ashok Transport Agency, Dogiparthi Venkata Satish, Raghu Laxminarayan) and on the principle that final authority vests in the general body (Section 72), not the managing committee.

Final Order

The appeal was allowed with costs. The judgment and award dated 12 January 2023 of Co-operative Court No. 3, Mumbai, was set aside. The original dispute was dismissed. The trial court was directed to prepare the award accordingly. Record and proceedings were ordered to be sent back immediately.

Legal Significance

The judgment reaffirms that managing committees of co-operative housing societies in Maharashtra do not possess inherent or residual power to evict members or terminate their occupancy rights by resolution. Expulsion under Section 35 remains the only statutory route for extreme cases, and even that requires strict compliance with the Act, Rules and Registrar’s approval. Mere allegations of nuisance, default or unauthorised use, however serious, cannot be converted into an eviction decree under Section 91 when the member owns the premises. Recovery of dues must follow the special mechanism under Section 101 (or the corresponding provision under 154B-29). The decision is a clear reminder that co-operative courts cannot invent remedies not provided by the statute and that societies must operate strictly within the four corners of the MCS Act.

The 38-year litigation finally ends with the restaurant owners retaining possession of their shops.

The post Managing Committee Has No Power to Evict Member: Co-op Court Ends 38-Year Dispute in Favour of Member appeared first on Square Feat India.