Case: M/S Electrical Cable Development Association Vs. M/S Arun Commercial Premises Cooperative Housing Society Lt

p.m. out of which Rs. 1000/p.m. was payable towards furniture and fixtures; that the name of the appellant was changed from Indian Cable Makers Association into M/s Electrical Cable Development Association also anotherp.m. out of which rent of Rs. 1,000/was towards the premises and Rs. 750/towards fixtures and furniture; that in the year 1976 the unregistered body decided to convert itself into a company in order to carry on its affairs more effectively and so registered as such under the Companies Act, 1956, that respondent No. 2 continued to receive rents from appellant in respect of the said premises. The appellant had also been using parking space in the building in question and had been making regular payments to respondent No. 1 Society; that the appellant filed a suit for declaration in the year 1981 in the Courts of Small Causes at Bombay that they are tenants in respect of the suit premises; that the second respondent filed a suit bearing No. 210/296 of 1981 seeking for eviction of the appellant; that when those proceedings were pending, Respondent No. 2 egged upon respondent No. 1 to raise a dispute in terms of Section 91 of the MaharashtraSocieties Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") for the purpose of evicting the appellant to enable respondent No. 2 to get the said premises and use personally through an arbitrator; that the Arbitrator made an award on 23.3.1990 directing eviction of the appellant and that the second respondent be directed to use the suit premises personally; that the appellant filed an appeal against the said award before the Maharashtra StateAppellate Court which was further dismissed by an order made on 8.1.1991; that a writ petition was thereafter preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay; that by an order made on 2.4.1991 the High Court upheld the order made by the Maharashtra StateAppellate Court and dismissed the writ petition however giving time to the appellant to vacate the premises by about a month. Hence this appeal by special leave.

Reasoning:
6. All that is provided under the said Article is that a member of Electrical Cable Development Association as of right be admitted as a member of thesubject to certain conditions. It does not say that all those members in the unregistered association become members of the association much less any resolution is produced before us of the Electrical Cable Development Association to show that they are converting themselves into an incorporated body. The members of the unregistered body are all incorporated bodies having a high commercial standing in the corporate sector, and therefore, cannot be expected to be so naive or ignorant as not to take such steps in the event it was the intention of such body to become an incorporated body in the manner suggested by the appellant. If really such action had been taken, it would not have been difficult for the appellant to produce such material. Therefore, the fact that the appellant is a distinct legal entity as found by the authorities below and affirmed by the High Court, cannot be seriously disputed. Since the appellant is a distinct legal entity other than the unregistered bodies and there is no material to show that it is a successor thereto it is not understandable as to how it became a tenant in respect of the premises in question without an agreement with the Society or respondent No. 2 who is a member thereof. It baffles us and thus the view taken by the High Court appears to us to be correct. Therefore, the second contention raised by the appellant either has no merit and is rejected.7. So far as the third contention urged on behalf of the appellant is concerned in the view we have taken, we may at once state that it is not necessary to examine the evidence adduced before the appellate Court and the appreciation of the same by it. Even without deciding the same if we assume the same for the purpose of appreciation of the matter that the findings recorded by the appellate Court are not correct and deserve to be answered in favour of the appellant, still the appellant has to fail in view of the finding we have recorded on the second contention raised by the appellant.