HORIZON CO-OPEERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD AND ANRversusTHE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR AND ORS

                                                                              902-wp637-2021.doc


                      AGK
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        WRIT PETITION NO.637 OF 2021

                      Horizon Cooperative Housing
                      Society Limited & Anr.                         … Petitioners
                                 V/s.
                      The Divisional Joint Registrar,
                      Coop. Societies & Ors.                         … Respondents


ATUL                  Mr. Balasaheb G. Ligade for the petitioners.
GANESH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
                      Mrs. M.S. Bane, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 2-State.
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.01.08
18:23:01 +0530
                      Mr. Niranjan Bhavake with Drishti Madhani, Anurag
                      Ramekar, and Vaishnavi Chote for respondent No.3.


                                                  CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                  DATED      : JANUARY 8, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      The petitioners are a cooperative housing society. They have
                      filed this petition to challenge an order passed by the Registrar
                      under Section 79(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
                      1960. The Registrar directed the society to give a no-objection
                      letter to respondent No.3 so that respondent No.3 can transfer
                      leasehold rights to a third party. The petitioners say that this
                      direction is bad in law. They want the Court to set it aside.

                      2.      The petitioners say that respondent No.3 did not make a
                      proper application. They say the application did not give sufficient
                      reasons. They say that the Registrar could not have passed such an
                      order without a proper application. They also rely on clause 3(r)


                                                        1
                                                       902-wp637-2021.doc


(iv) of the lease deed. Under this clause, the lessee cannot transfer
or sell the land to anyone except persons already approved by the
lessor. It also says that no new member can be added without prior
approval of the lessor. Based on this clause, the petitioners say that
respondent No.3 could not have transferred the plot to any third
party without society’s permission. They also say that the lessor’s
approval is mandatory.

3.    The order of the Registrar shows that the petitioner-society is
a tenant-ownership society. In such societies, the society holds the
land on lease. The member holds leasehold rights in a specific plot.
The member can transfer those rights if the lessor grants
permission. The order of the Registrar records that respondent
No.3 made two applications on 14 August 2018 and 23 October
2018. Respondent No.3 asked the society for a no-objection letter
for transfer of membership. The society refused.

4.    The record show that the society did not object to the
proposed transferee on grounds of eligibility. The society did not
say that the proposed purchaser was disqualified. It only stated
that respondent No.3 must first apply to the lessor. It insisted that
the member must obtain lessor’s approval and must show
eligibility as per lessor’s norms.

5.    The reply filed by the society contains no other ground. The
society has not pointed out any rule or bye-law that makes the
proposed purchaser ineligible. The only objection is that the
lessor’s approval is not yet obtained. There is no material to show
that the society examined the merits of the proposed purchaser.




                                     2
                                                        902-wp637-2021.doc


There is no material to show that the society found any violation of
its own bye-laws.

6.    If the lease deed requires the member to take permission
from PCNTDA, then that requirement binds the member. A no-
objection from the society cannot replace the lessor’s permission. If
the lease deed requires the lessor’s approval, then the member
must obtain it. However, that does not explain why the society
should refuse a no-objection. The society has not produced any
evidence that granting a no-objection would violate any bye-law or
legal requirement. The society has not shown any sufficient cause
to deny the request. The burden was on the society to show
reasons supported by records.

7.    Section    79(2)   empowers     the   Registrar     to    compel
performance of statutory duties. The society’s bye-laws require it to
act reasonably on applications of members. In the present case, the
Registrar found that the society withheld no-objection without
valid cause. Based on the material placed on record, that finding is
supported by evidence. The Registrar therefore directed the society
to issue the no-objection. This direction falls within the scope of
Section 79(2).

8.    The no-objection from the society does not give automatic
permission for transfer under the lease deed. Respondent No.3 or
the transferee must still comply with the terms of the lease. They
must still apply to PCNTDA if the lease deed requires it. The
Registrar’s order does not override that requirement. The Registrar
has only ensured that the society performs its own duty.




                                  3
                                                      902-wp637-2021.doc


9.    For these reasons, the direction given by the Registrar does
not call for interference.

10.   The petition fails. No relief can be granted. The writ petition
stands disposed of. No order as to costs.


                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  4