Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Udupi Mahila Grahakara S. Sangha Ltd. vs Y. Mahabala Shetty on 16 March, 2015
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Adarsh Kumar Goel
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3041 of 2015
(@ Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6960/2007)
UDUPI MAHILA GRAHAKARA S. SANGHA LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Y. MAHABALA SHETTY & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the appellant is directed against the order dated 10.11.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal NO. 2275 of 2004 (HRC) and Review Petition No. 715 of 2005 decided on 03.12.2005.
The only question that has arisen for consideration is with regard to the interpretation of Section 2(7)(bc) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.
Section 2(7)(bc) of the Act reads as follows:
“2. Application of the Act-
(7) Nothing in this Act shall apply-
(bc) to any building used or intended to be used as a godown belonging to a Co-operative Marketing Society, a Co-operative Consumers Society or a Co-operative Primary Service Society registered or deemed to be registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959” Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Meenakshi Kohli Date: 2015.03.19 12:31:07 IST Reason: The operative words in the Section quoted above are “any 1 building used or intended to be used as a godown”. These words particularly the words “used as a godown” appear to have been over-looked by the learned Single Judge who decided the matter against the appellant as well as by the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal of the appellant.
This is clear from paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment and order where the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge has been mentioned by the Division Bench. Para 3 reads as follows:
“The primary contention that was canvassed before the learned Single Judge was that under Section 2(7)(bc) of the Act, a Society cannot be filing a petition under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and therefore, had requested the Court to annul the eviction order passed by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), JMFC, Udupi. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the provisions of Section 2(7)(bc) of the Act, has come to the conclusion that the provision of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, is not make applicable to the premises, which belongs to a cooperative society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Society Act. Therefore, has allowed the writ petition and has set aside the eviction order passed by the learned II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) JMFC, Udupi. However, learned Single Judge has reserved liberty to the appellant Society work out its remedies by filing appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.” Similarly, the Division Bench seems to have erred in over-looking the operative words. Para 4 of the impugned judgment reads as follows:
4. …..2
A reading of the aforesaid provision would clearly demonstrate that the Act is not made applicable to premises, which belongs to a Cooperative Marketing Society, a Cooperative Consumer Society or a Cooperative Primary Service Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959. The Division Bench has gone only on the basis that the appellant is a co-operative consumer society and has over-looked the words “used as a godown”. Under the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and remand the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits. The civil appeal is allowed.
…....................J. [Madan B. Lokur] …....................J. [Adarsh Kumar Goel] NEW DELHI MARCH 16, 2015 3 ITEM NO.205 COURT NO.9 SECTION IVA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6960/2007 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10/11/2005 in WA No. 2275/2004,03/12/2005 in RP No. 715/2005 in WA No. 2275/2004, 01/12/2006 in IA No. 1/2006 in RP No. 715/2005 in WA No. 2275/2004 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore) UDUPI MAHILA GRAHAKARA S. SANGHA LTD. Petitioner(s) VERSUS Y. MAHABALA SHETTY & ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP and permission to file additional documents and office report) (For final disposal) Date : 16/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Girish Ananthamuthy, Adv.
Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. N. Bhat,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed Order is placed on the file] 4