Sadhbavna Co-Operative Group ... vs Salil Agarwal
2009 Latest Caselaw 3363 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 25.08.2009

+      W.P.(C) 5265/2008


SADHBAVNA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD                                      ..... Petitioner


                                     - Versus -

SALIL AGARWAL                                            ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:-

For the Petitioner       : Dr Anurag Kumar Aggarwal with Mr Umesh Mishra
For the Respondent       : Ms Zubeda Begum

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been filed by Sadhbavna Cooperative Group

Housing Society Limited being aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2008 in

appeal No. 80/2007/DCT being an appeal under Section 112 of the Delhi

Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').

The said appeal before the Tribunal was preferred again by the society

against the Arbitrator's Award dated 26.03.2007 under Section 71 of the said

Act. By virtue of the said Award, the Arbitrator had accepted the claim filed

by the respondent in connection with his membership and held that his

membership should be continued by the society. The issue that has been

raised is with regard to the eligibility of the respondent for becoming a

member of the petitioner society.

2. According to the petitioner society, the respondent applied for

membership of the society on 13.04.1997 through his guardian and father.

At that point of time, the petitioner was only 16 years old. There is no

dispute that the fact of the petitioner being a minor was clearly revealed in

the application dated 13.04.1997. The case of the petitioner society is that in

any event, the respondent not being eligible for membership, could not have

been granted the membership of the said society in terms of Section 20(1)(a)

of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, which was extant at that point

of time. It is on the basis of that that the respondent's membership has been

cancelled vide the letter dated 08.09.2005, a copy whereof is at page 38 of

the paper book.

3. The respondent was aggrieved by the said cancellation and,

therefore, made a claim against the society. The Award dated 26.03.2007

was made in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said Award,

the petitioner society preferred an appeal before the Delhi Cooperative

Tribunal. After considering the submissions made by the parties, the

Tribunal accepted the argument advanced by the respondent and rejected

those which were made on behalf of the petitioner society. The Tribunal

noted that it is not denied by the society that the application for membership

was made by the respondent through his father as his guardian and that the

fact of his being minor was in no way suppressed or concealed from the

society. The Tribunal also placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench

of this Court in Virender Singh Sethi v Vice Chairman, DDA: 65 (1997)

DLT 59 (DB).

4. Although the said decision was in the context of the Delhi

Development Authority (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates)

Regulations, 1968, the reasoning adopted in the said decision was applied by

way of analogy in the present case also which is under the Delhi Cooperative

Societies Act, 1972. We also note that the Tribunal observed that the

petitioner society accepted all the payments towards admission fee and other

instalments without any demur, from the respondent. It is also important to

note that although the respondent was a minor on 13.04.1997, he attained

majority in 1999 and on and from 1999, he was eligible to be a member of

the society. He continued to be regarded as a member of the society right

upto 2005, when the letter of 08.09.2005 was issued by the administrator. It

is, therefore, clear that even after the respondent had become a major, his

membership was continued for at least six years before which the action of

cancellation was abruptly taken by the issuance of the letter dated

08.09.2005. It is not as if the membership was cancelled before he attained

majority. His membership is sought to be cancelled six years after he

attained majority and that too after payments had been accepted from him

from time to time. At no earlier point of time, were his payments refunded

or was it pointed out that the petitioner was not eligible for membership. In

any event, on the date his membership was sought to be cancelled, the

petitioner was no longer a minor.

5. In these circumstances, we are inclined not to interfere with the order

passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed.

No orders as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

VEENA BIRBAL, J AUGUST 25, 2009 SR