High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-01-10Original petitions dismissed.

Common Order in OP(C) Nos. 2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021, High Court of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:OP(C) Nos. 2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date: 2022-01-10
Court Decision / Holding: Common order dated 22.04.2021 affirmed; These original petitions stand dismissed; The eviction disputes of members occupying Society premises are within the jurisdiction of the Co-Operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act.
Final Disposition: Original petitions dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Krishnamoorthy N
Ramakrishna Pillai KG
Satheesh Kumar S
Sidharthan.K
Suresh Babu K

Respondents

M/S The Chandranagar Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd., represented by the Secretary, Preetha PV, Padinjakkara (H), Thenur Post, Palakkad Taluk and District, Palakkad 678 613

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sajan Varghese K. Liju, M.P
• Jophy Pothen Kandankary

Counsels for Respondents

• BINOY VASUDEVAN
• R. MANIKANTAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

These Original Petitions challenge a common order of the Co-Operative Arbitration Court (Northern), Kozhikode, which, in ARC Nos. 29 of 2017, 28 of 2017, 27 of 2017, 26 of 2017 and 25 of 2017, directed eviction of members of The Chandranagar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. The petitions—OP(C) Nos. 2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021—argue that the Arbitration Court had no jurisdiction to entertain eviction proceedings because the occupancy was under a license arrangement, not a lease. The petitioners contend that the documents are license agreements and that occupant status should be treated as licensees; therefore, eviction should be adjudicated by a Civil Court, not the Arbitration Court. The Society counters that the nomenclature of the instrument cannot decisively determine the issue; the essential question is the true nature of the occupancy, and Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act provides that disputes between a member and the Society shall be resolved by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The court observes that the petitioners are admittedly members who occupied Society premises, and that Section 69 empowers the Arbitration Court to adjudicate such disputes, including eviction. While distinguishing the earlier decision in Chandranagar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd v KK Ali (2020(1) KHC 112), the common order is ultimately upheld. The petitions are dismissed, and the Arbitration Court’s jurisdiction is maintained across all five OP(C) Nos. 2021 filings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiaSection 69 of the Co-operative Societies ActSection 69(b) of the Co-operative Societies Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Nomenclature of a lease/license document is not decisive; the substance of the arrangement must be read from the document.
Jurisdiction to decide eviction disputes lies with the Co-Operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, irrespective of how the instrument is styled.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force (overriding clause) as used in the statutory text.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that occupancy of the premises was secured under license deeds and not a lease, framing themselves as licensees. They contended that eviction proceedings belong to civil courts, not the Co-Operative Arbitration Court, and that the arbitration route is inappropriate because the agreement’s nomenclature does not reflect a lease. They relied on the license agreements (Exhibits P2, P7) and asserted that the arrangement should be treated as license-based occupancy, thus outside the jurisdiction of Section 69. They urged the court to examine the true nature of the arrangement rather than its label.

Contentions of Respondents

The Society contended that the form of the instrument is not decisive; the true nature of occupancy must be determined by substance. It argued that Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act authorises the Co-operative Arbitration Court to adjudicate disputes involving eviction where a member occupies Society premises, regardless of whether the document is styled as a license or lease. It emphasized that Section 69(b) applies to disputes between a member and the Society and that such disputes fall within arbitration jurisdiction. The respondents asserted that the common order correctly placed eviction disputes within the arbitration framework and urged that no interference was warranted.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chandranagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd v KK Ali	2020(1) KHC 112	Distinguished	The court referenced the earlier decision but distinguished its ratio, noting that it dealt with lease versus license and the facts here differ; thus the earlier authority is not controlling for the present occupancy disputes.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Common Order in OP(C) Nos. 2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021, High Court of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943** **OP(C) NO. 2111 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:** **KRISHNAMOORTHY N, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. KC NATESAN, 'KRISHNA', HILL VIEW ENCLAVE, KALLEPULLY POST, CHANDRANGAR, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PALAKKAD 678 005.** **BY ADVS. SAJAN VARGHEESE K. LIJU. M.P** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:** **M/S THE CHANDRANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY THE SECRETARY, PREETHA PV, PADINJAKKARA (H), THENUR POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PALAKKAD-678 613.** **BY ADVS. BINOY VASUDEVAN R.MANIKANDAN** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2022, ALONG WITH OP(C)NOS.2112/2021, 2113/2021, 2114/2021 AND 2116/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 ..2.. # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 2112 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT :** **RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI K.G. AGED 80 YEARS S/O. LATE GOPALA PILLAI, V/414, 'PRANAVAM', ALAMPALLAM ROAD, THARA NAGAR, CHANDRANAGAR POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PALAKKAD 678 007** **BY ADVS. SAJAN VARGHEESE K. LIJU. M.P** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF :** **M/S.THE CHANDRANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PREETHA PV, PADINJAKKARA (H), THENUR POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PALAKKAD 678 613** **BY ADVS. BINOY VASUDEVAN R.MANIKANTAN** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2022, ALONG WITH OP(C)NOS.2111/2021, 2113/2021, 2114/2021 AND 2116/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 ..3.. ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 2113 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT :** **SATHEESH KUMAR S AGED 41 YEARS S/O C.SHANMUGHAM, H NO 3, SURYA NAGAR, CHANDRANAGAR POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PALAKKAD-678 007** **BY ADVS. SAJAN VARGHEESE K. LIJU. M.P JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:** **M/S.THE CHANDRANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD,** **REP BY THE SECRETARY, PREETHA PV, PADINJAKKARA (H), THENUR POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PALAKKAD-678 613.** **BY ADVS. BINOY VASUDEVAN R.MANIKANTAN** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2022, ALONG WITH OP(C)NOS.2111/2021, 2112/2021, 2114/2021 AND 2116/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 ..4.. ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 2114 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT :** **SIDHARTHAN.K AGED 58 YEARS S/O V KRISHNAN, KARUPPATH HOUSE, PANCHARIKKODE, PIRUVUSALA, MARUTHAROAD POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PALAKKAD-07.** **BY ADVS. SAJAN VARGHEESE K. LIJU. M.P** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:** **M/S.THE CHANDRANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOSE BUILDING SOCIETIY LTD.** **HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PREETHA PV, PADINJAKKARA HOUSE, THENUR POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PALAKKAD678613.** **BY ADVS. BINOY VASUDEVAN R.MANIKANTAN** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2022, ALONG WITH OP(C)NOS.2111/2021, 2112/2021, 2113/2021 AND 2116/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 ..5.. ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 2116 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:** **SURESH BABU K, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. LATE R. KOCHUKRISHNAN MENON, KRISHNA AUTO TECH, CCS COMPLEX, PIRUVUSALA, MARUTHAROAD POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PALAKKAD-678 007** **BY ADVS. SAJAN VARGHEESE K. LIJU. M.P** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF :** **M/S THE CHANDRANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.,** **REP. BY THE SECRETARY, PREETHA PV, PADINJAKKARA (H), THENUR POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PALAKKAD 678 613.** **BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2022, ALONG WITH OP(C)NOS.2111/2021, 2112/2021, 2113/2021 AND 2114/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **“C.R.”** ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, J.** **-----------------------------------------------------------O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021** **------------------------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 10[th] day of January, 2022** ## **J U D G M E N T** Common order dated 22.04.2021 in IA Nos. 126(D) of 2019, 126(C) of 2019, 126(B) of 2019, 126(A) of 2019 and 126 of 2019 in ARC Nos.29 of 2017, 28 of 2017, 27 of 2017, 26 of 2017 and 25 of 2017 on the file of the Co-Operative Arbitration Court (Northern), Kozhikode, is under challenge in these original petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. In fact, as per the common order passed by the Co-Operative Arbitration Court (Northern), Kozhikode, after appraising the contention raised by the petitioners herein stating that the Arbitration Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the society for getting vacant possession of O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the property, the Arbitration Court found that the contention raised by the petitioners cannot be sustained. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners took the property on the basis of license deeds executed between the society and the respective petitioners and they have been occupying the same as licencees. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Cooperative Society that in the written statement filed by the petitioners herein before the Co-Operative Arbitration Court, they raised contention that the arrangement in this matter is not a license but a lease. It is submitted by the learned counsel further that the nomenclature of the document is not decisive, when the nature of arrangement is directly in question. According to him, the document as such has to be read to understand what actually is the arrangement. 5. Thus it is necessary to decide a pertinent question as to whether which is the appropriate Forum to adjudicate the eviction sought for by the building society. 6. Even a cursory reading of the written statement O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** filed by the petitioners and the contentions raised by the petitioners, it could be gathered that the petitioners would assert their status as lessees. That apart, going by the common order impugned, the Co-Operative Arbitration Court relied on a decision of this Court reported in [2020(1) KHC 112], **Chandranagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., No.F 1624, Marutharoad, Palakkad v. K.K.Ali.,** to negative the contentions raised by the petitioners herein. 7. In the above decision, a Single Bench of this Court considered a similar question. In that case, when the eviction of a person occupying the property of a House Building Society on lease was sought before the Civil Court, the Munsiff Court dismissed the same holding that the jurisdiction is vested with the Arbitration Court as provided under Section 69 of the Cooperative Societies Act. In the said decision, it was held by this Court that such a dispute is within the jurisdiction of the CoOperative Arbitration Court. It was after referring this decision, the Co-Operative Arbitration Court negatived the contention raised by the petitioners that the Co-Operative Arbitration Court O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** did not have jurisdiction to entertain this matter. 8. While distinguishing the case dealt in **Chandranagar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd.'** s case, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in the said case, this Court considered the lease arrangement between a building society and a member and the license arrangement not dealt under the said decision and therefore, the ratio of the decision cannot be applied the facts of this case. 9. While addressing this argument, it has to be observed that the petitioners claim in this matter before the Arbitration Court is that of lessees, though the nomenclature of the agreement is license agreement. But the petitioners are attempting to establish the arrangement as licensee before this Court. 10. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the building society that where the occupation of the property in possession of a person involved, whether the arrangement is lease or license Section 69 can be invoked by following the ratio in the said decision. Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 **==> picture [26 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** deals with settlement of disputes. Section 69(b) provides that _notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises,-between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, a past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society._ 11. Having appraised the facts of the case wherein, the petitioners, admittedly being members of the Building Society, obtained occupation of the premises owned by the Building Co-Operative Society, I am of the considered view that the claim for eviction sought for by the Building Society shall be decided by the Co-Operative Arbitration Court by invoking power under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act and therefore, the common order passed by the Arbitration Court, impugned herein, is perfectly in order the same does not require any interference. Accordingly, These original petitions stand dismissed. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 ..11.. ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2111/2021** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ARC NO. 29/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT (NORTHERN), KOZHIKODE.** - **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT OF LICENSE ENTERED BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON 02.11.2011** - **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN EXHIBIT P1 BY THE PETITIONER.** - **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF BY-LAW NO. 1 OF THE RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 126(D) /2019 FILED IN EXHIBIT P1.** **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED TO EXHIBIT P5. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE** _**CHANDRANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD V. KK ALI,**_ **2020 (1) KHC 112.** **Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2021 PASSED IN EXHIBIT P5 (COMMON ORDER).** O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 ..12.. ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2112/2021** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ARC NO. 28/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT (NORTHERN), KOZHIKODE.** - **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF LICENCE ENTERED BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON 01-012011** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN EXHIBIT P1 BY THE PETITIONER.** - **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF BY-LAW NO. 1 OF THE RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 126(C)/2019 FILED IN EXHIBIT P1** **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED TO EXHIBIT P5** **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN** _**THE CHANDRANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD V. KK ALI**_ **2020(1) KHC 112** **Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22-04-2021 PASSED IN EXHIBIT P5 (COMMON ORDER)** O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 ..13.. ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2113/2021** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ARC NO 27/2017 OF THE FILE OF THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT (NORTHERN) KOZHIKODE DATED 20.1.2017** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF LICENCE ENTERED BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON 1.11.2011** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 26.3.2011 FILED IN EXHIBIT P1 BY THE PETITIONER** - **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF BY-LAW NO 1 OF THE RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF IA NO 126(B)/2019 FILED IN EXHIBIT P1 DATED 18.7.2019** **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN** _**THE CHANDRANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD V KK ALI**_ **2020(1) KHC 112** **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.4.2021 PASSED IN EXHIBIT P5 (COMMON ORDER )** O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 ..14.. ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2114/2021** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ARC NO.26/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION CURT (NORTHERN), KOZHIKODE.** - **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF LICENCE ENTERED BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON 02.11.2011.** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN EXHIBIT P1 BY THE PETITIONER.** **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF BY-LAW NO.1 OF THE RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF I A NO.126(A)/2019 FILED IN EXHIBIT P1.** **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED TO EXHIBIT P5.** **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN** _**THE CHANDRANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD V.KK ALI,**_ **2020(1) KHC 112.** **Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2021 PASSED IN EXHIBIT P5 (COMMON ORDER).** O.P.(C)Nos.2111, 2112, 2113, 2114 and 2116 of 2021 ..15.. ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2116/2021** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ARC NO. 25/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT (NORTHERN), KOZHIKODE.** - **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF LICENCE ENTERED BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON 02.11.2011.** - **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN EXHIBIT P1 BY THE PETITIONER.** - **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF BY-LAW NO.1 OF THE RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 126/2019 FILED IN EXHIBIT P1.** **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED TO EXHIBIT P5.** **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN** _**THE CHANDRANAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. V. KK ALI,**_ **2020(1) KHC 112.** **Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2021 PASSED IN EXHIBIT P5 (COMMON ORDER).**