1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Amk WRIT PETITION NO. 745 OF 2007 Madhavnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs. Jugraj Rajmal Rathod & 3 Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar with A. A. Kocharekar for the Petitioner Mr. Vivek Kantawala for Respondent No.1. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 25th June, 2010. P.C. 1. This Petition challenges the order of the learned Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, G/N Ward, Mumbai dated 17.07.2003 and the order in Revision Application filed therefrom being Revision Application No. 563 of 2003 dated 15.07.2006 directing the Petitioner society to admit Respondent No.1 as one of its member. 2. The Petitioner society was formed by certain persons who were tenants on the plot of land where the society building is constructed by contributing costs of the construction. This cost of construction was paid to one Mr. Thakur from whom the plot was purchased. The Petitioner contends that this payment was made upon equitable contribution towards purchase price from all the members 2 after the plot was purchased by these members who desired to construct the society building. It came to be constructed by contributions made by 13 members on the said plot. The tenancies of the tenants of the erstwhile landlord were continued by the society. They were given premises in the newly constructed building as accommodation on tenancy basis. At that time Respondent No.1 did not desire to become member. 3. Respondent No. 1 applied for declaration for tenancy in RAD Suit No. 1378 of 1983. The Parties filed Consent Terms under which the Petitioner accepted and declared that Respondent No.1 is the tenant and Respondent No.1 agreed to pay monthly rent which was inclusive of water charges, municipal charges and other permitted increases payable to the Municipality. 4. Thereafter merely by virtue of his tenancy he sought membership. This was despite the fact that at the time of purchase of plot for construction of the building and at the time of construction of the building itself Respondent No.1 did not contribute to the cost of the society building and hence did not become a member at the relevant time. 5. The application of Respondent to become a member was, therefore, without payment of the consideration for the incorporation and registration of the society and construction of its building. The application of Respondent No.1 for membership was, therefore, not bonafide and not in accordance with the requirement of 3 being a member at the inception itself. The later application of Respondent No.1 to be a member when he chose to be a member after the building was constructed and the society was registered has to be rejected. 6. Mere payment of membership fee would not entitle a tenant of the society ipso facto to become a member. 7. Such was the application made before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and in appeal therefrom. 8. The impugned orders directing the Petitioner to make Respondent No.1 its member, therefore, suffer from a material irregularity. Hence both the impugned orders are set aside. 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. ( R. S. DALVI, J.)