CR No.4543 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4543 of 2011 Date of decision: 24.08.2011 Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. ....................Petitioner v. Shambu Nath .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Tarunveer Vashisth,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendant/petitioner in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has assailed the order dated 23.2.2011 (P4) whereby the plaintiff/tenant was allowed to dispense with the service of notice under Section 79 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act,1961 (for short the Act) and further the defendant/petitioner was restrained from illegally and forcibly dispossessing him from the demised premises/shop till the next date of hearing; further prayer is for quashing order dated 27.4.2011 (P5) whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint for non-issuance of a notice under Section 79 of the Act has been dismissed. CR No.4543 of 2011 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the defendant/petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Act and in view of the provisions of Section 79 of the Act, the plaint is not maintainable since the provisions ordain a three months' notice in writing prior to the filing of the suit. Hence it is submitted that both the impugned orders are liable to be set quashed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the plea being raised on behalf of the defendant/petitioner is wholly untenable. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff/respondent is a tenant on a shop owned by the petitioner/society and the dispute is with regard to the tenancy rights. The plain reading of Section 79 of the Act reveals that a three months' notice is required in case of disputes relating to the business of the society. It also cannot be disputed that the issue of tenancy rights cannot by any stretch of reasoning can be said to be business activity of the petitioner/society. The counsel for the defendant/petitioner has been unable to show by referring to any regulation of the society that the dispute relates to any business activity. In view of the above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 24.08.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge