JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE only question, which has arisen in this appeal, is whether, when the plaintiff and defendants are co-operative societies, registered under the provisions Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), with a different business activity, altogether, the defendant, being a lessee in a portion of a building owned by the plaintiff-Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., is right in contending that the dispute pertaining to the tenancy between them, falls under Section 90(D) of the abovesaid Act and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted and only a reference can be made by the landlord under Section 90(D) of the Act. ( 2. ) THE plaintiff is a Co-operative Urban Bank. THE defendant-tenant was put in possession under Ex.B25, lease agreement, dated 31.01.1997, on payment of rent of Rs.460/- per month. As the space available for banking operation was not sufficient and as per the banking regulations, property of the plaintiff-Urban bank should not be leased out and pointed out as improper, the plaintiff-Urban Bank has issued a quite notice, dated 30.04.1999, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession. THE defendant opposed the relief sought for, on the ground that, as both parties are Co-operative societies, permission has to be obtained from the Government, before taking steps for eviction. As both the societies function under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the dispute ought to have been decided only by an Arbitrator and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Among other defences, the correctness of the quit notice was also questioned. But the learned counsel for the appellant is not harping on the same. The trial Court framed seven issues for consideration. Issues 4 and 6 alone are relevant for the purpose of adjudication in this appeal and they are extracted hereunder. (i) As the defendant is a Government society, whether the contention that the proceedings for eviction could be taken only after obtaining from the Government?s permission? (ii) Whether the contention of the defendant that the dispute can be resolved only in the arbitration proceedings and the suit for eviction cannot be filed before the Civil Court? ( 3. ) THE Secretary to the plaintiff-Urban Bank examined himself as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A10 were filed on the side of the plaintiff. (ii) Whether the contention of the defendant that the dispute can be resolved only in the arbitration proceedings and the suit for eviction cannot be filed before the Civil Court? ( 3. ) THE Secretary to the plaintiff-Urban Bank examined himself as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A10 were filed on the side of the plaintiff. THE Manager of the defendant-Co-optex examined himself as DW.1 and marked 25 documents. THE trial Court, upon consideration of pleadings and evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendant-society, to quite and deliver possession before 30.06.2003 and imposed costs. ( 4. ) BEING aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.52 of 2003, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvarur. The lower appellate Court, on consideration of materials on record, found no reasons to interfere with the judgment and decree and accordingly, concurred with the decision. While entertaining the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed. "(i) When the lease agreement Ex.B25 is admittedly only between the plaintiff and the second defendant only between the plaintiff and the second defendant whether the suit is bad for want of notice to the lessee, the second defendant for terminating the tenancy? (ii) When the plaintiff received rents for the suit property before and after filing the suit despite the issuance of notices to the first defendant under Ex.A1 to A3, whether the suit is bad for want of proper notice to the second defendant? (iii) when the plaintiff and the defendants are co-operative societies and registered under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and Section 90(d) of the Act provides arbitration for any dispute arises between two co-operative societies, whether the suit is maintainable in law?" ( 5. ) BEFORE adverting to the above, it is necessary to have a cursory look at the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (for brevity, called as "the Act"). Section 90 of the Act deals with disputes and it reads as follows: "90. ) BEFORE adverting to the above, it is necessary to have a cursory look at the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (for brevity, called as "the Act"). Section 90 of the Act deals with disputes and it reads as follows: "90. Disputes:-(1) If any dispute touching the constitution of the board or the management or the business of a registered society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the competent authority constituted under sub-section (3) of Section 75 or the Registrar or the society or its board against a paid servant of the society arises- (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its board or any officer, agent or servant of the society, or (c) between the society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or servant, or any past officer, past agent or past servant, or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased servant of the society, or (d) between the society and any other registered society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision. Explanation:- For the purposes of this Section, a dispute shall include- (i) a claim by a registered society for any debt or demand due to it from a member, past member or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member whether such debt or demand be admitted or not. (ii) a claim by a registered society against a member, past member or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member for the delivery of possession to the society of land or other immovable property resumed by it for breach of the conditions of assignment or allotment of such land or other immovable property, and (iii) a decision by the Board under sub-section (3) of section 34; Provided that no dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election shall be referred under this sub-section till the date of the declaration of the result of such election. (2) The Registrar may, on receipt of such reference,- (a) decide the dispute himself or transfer it for disposal to any person subordinate to and empowered by him; or (b) subject to such Rules as may be prescribed, refer it for disposal to an Arbitrator or Arbitrators. (3) Subject to such Rules as may be prescribed, the Registrar may withdraw any dispute referred under sub-section (1) to any person subordinate to him or transferred under clause (a) or referred under clause (b) of sub-section (2) by the Registrar or any person subordinate to him, and- (a) decide the dispute himself, or (b) transfer it for disposal to any person subordinate to and empowered by him; or (c) refer it for disposal to an Arbitrator or Arbitrators; or (d) re-transfer the same for disposal to the person from whom it was withdrawn; or (e) refer it for disposal to the Arbitrator or Arbitrators from whom it was withdrawn. (4) If a question arises, whether for the purposes of this section any person is or was a Member of a registered Society, or whether the dispute referred for decision is a dispute touching the constitution of the Board, or the management or business of the Society, such question shall be decided by the Registrar. (5) Where any dispute referred to the Registrar under sub-Section (1) or withdrawn by him under sub-Section (3) relates to immovable property, the Registrar or the person or the Arbitrator or Arbitrators to whom it is transferred, referred or re-transferred under sub-Section (2) or sub-section (3) may, on the application of a party to the dispute direct that any person who is interested in such property, whether such person be a Member or not, be included as a party to the dispute and any decision that may be passed on the reference, by the Registrar, the person, the Arbitrator or Arbitrators aforesaid, as the case may be, shall be binding on the party so included, provided that he shall be liable only to the extent of such property. (6) The Registrar may pass such interlocutory orders as he may deem fit in the interests of justice. (7) Nothing contained in the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Central Act X of 1940) shall apply to any Arbitration under this Section. (6) The Registrar may pass such interlocutory orders as he may deem fit in the interests of justice. (7) Nothing contained in the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Central Act X of 1940) shall apply to any Arbitration under this Section. (8) Nothing contained in Section 34 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) shall apply to any decision passed or award made under this section. (9)(a) The period of limitation for referring a dispute under this Section shall be regulated by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) as if the disputes were a suit and the Registrar, a Civil Court, subject to the following modifications, namely:- (i) when the dispute relates to a Society in respect of which a Special Officer has been appointed under Section 88 or to a Society which has been ordered to be wound up under Section 137, the period of limitation shall be six years from the date of the order issued under Section 88 or Section 137, as the case may be; (ii) save as otherwise provided in clause (i), when the dispute relates to any act or omission on the part of any of the parties referred to in clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1), the period of limitation shall be six years from the date on which the act or omission with referred to which the act or omission with reference to which the dispute arose, took place; (iii) when the dispute is in respect of, or in connection with, any election, the period of limitation shall be two months from the date of declaration of the result of the election. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), the Registrar may admit a dispute after the expiry of the period of limitation if the applicant satisfies the Registrar that he had sufficient cause for not referring the dispute within such period and the dispute so admitted shall be a dispute which shall not be barred on the ground that the period of limitation has expire." ( 6. ) SECTION 141 deals with bar of legal proceedings and the same is extracted hereunder: "Save insofar as expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall take cognizance of any matter connected with the winding-up or cancellation of the registration of a registered society under this Act, and when a Liquidator has been appointed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie or be proceeded with against the Liquidator as such or against the Society or any Member thereof any matter touching the affairs of the registered Society, except by leave of the Registrar and subject to such terms as he may impose; Provided that where the winding-up order is cancelled or withdrawn under SECTION 142, the provisions of this section shall cease to operate in respect of the liability of the Society and its Members to be sued but they shall continue to apply to the Liquidator already appointed." Section 143 deals with the powers of the Registrar to recover certain sums by attachment and sale of the property and it is as follows: "143. Power of the Registrar to recover certain sums by attachment and sale of property-The Registrar or any person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf may, subject to the Rules and without prejudice to any other mode of recovery provided by or under this Act, recover:- (a) any sum due under a decree or an order of a Civil Court, a decision or an Award of the Registrar or any person subordinate to and empowered by the Registrar or Arbitrator or Arbitrators or an order of the Registrar. Explanation.-For the purpose of this clause, "Registrar" and "Arbitrator" shall also include the Registrar of the State having reciprocal arrangements with the State of Tamil Nadu and Arbitrator appointed by such registrar; or (b) any sum due from a registered Society or from an officer, former officer, Member or past or deceased Member of a registered Society as such to the Government including any costs awarded to the Government in any proceeding under this Act; or (c) any sum ordered to be paid towards the expenses of a general meeting of a registered Society called under sub-section (4) of Section 32 or sub-clause (ii) of clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 81; or (d) any sum awarded by way of costs under Section 85 to a registered Society including a Financing Bank; or (e) any sum ordered under Section 139 to be recovered as a contribution to the assets of a registered Society or as costs of liquidation; or (i) any sum ordered under Section 87 to be repaid to a registered Society or recovered as a contribution to its assets; or (g) any amount due under a certificate granted by the Registrar under sub-section (1) of Section 150; Together with the interest, if any, due on such sum and the costs of process, by the attachment and sale or by the sale without attachment of the property of the person against whom such decree, decision. Award, order or certificate, has been obtained or passed." ( 7. ) SECTIONS 144 and 145 deals with recovery of debts and the Publication of information respecting Members or past or deceased Members from whom any debt or outstanding demand is due to the Society and the same are extracted hereunder: "144. Award, order or certificate, has been obtained or passed." ( 7. ) SECTIONS 144 and 145 deals with recovery of debts and the Publication of information respecting Members or past or deceased Members from whom any debt or outstanding demand is due to the Society and the same are extracted hereunder: "144. Recovery of debts.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force and without prejudice to any other mode of recovery which is being taken or may be taken, the Registrar or any person subordinate to him empowered by the Registrar in this behalf may, subject to the Rules and on application from a registered Society for the purpose, recover any debt or outstanding demand due to the Society by any Member or past or deceased Member by sale of the property or interest in property which is subject to a charge under sub-section (1) of Section 40: Provided that no sale shall be ordered under this section unless the Member or past Member or the nominee, heir or legal representative of the deceased Member has been served in the manner prescribed, with a notice of the application to sell and has failed to pay the debt or outstanding demand within fifteen days from the date of such service. 145. Publication of information respecting Members or past or deceased Members from whom any debt or outstanding demand is due to the Society:- If the Financing Bank is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient, in the public interest or for the purpose of securing the recovery or any debt or outstanding demand due to any registered Society which is affiliated to the Financing Bank to publish the names of any Members or past or deceased Members from whom any debt or outstanding demand is due to the registered Society, the Financing Bank may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, cause to be published in such manner as it thinks fit, the names of such Members." ( 8. ) SECTION 146 deals with the power of the Registrar or person to be a Civil Court for certain purposes and it is extracted hereunder: "146. ) SECTION 146 deals with the power of the Registrar or person to be a Civil Court for certain purposes and it is extracted hereunder: "146. Registrar or person empowered by him to be a Civil Court for certain purposes:- The Registrar or any person empowered by him in that behalf shall be deemed when exercising any power under this Act for the recovery of any amount by the attachment and sale or by the sale without attachment of any property, or when passing any orders on any application made to him for such recovery, or to take some steps in aid of such recovery, to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963)." Sections 147 to 150 of the abovesaid Act are extracted hereunder: "147. Officers or servants of registered Societies and sale officers not to bid at sales:- At any sale of movable or immovable property held for the recovery of any money due to a registered Society, no officer or servant of such Society or of the Financing Bank (except on behalf of the Society or of the Financing Bank of which he is an officer or servant) and no sale officer or other person having any duty to perform in connection with such sale, shall either directly or indirectly, bid for or acquire or attempt to acquire any interest in such property. 148. Recovery of sums due to the Government:- All sums due from a registered Society or from an officer, former officer, Member or past or deceased Member of a registered Society as such to the Government including any costs awarded to the Government in any proceeding under this Act may, without prejudice to any other mode or recovery provided by or under this Act, be recovered in the same manner as arrears of land revenue and for the purposes of such recovery, the Registrar shall have the powers of a Collector under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864). (2) Sums due from a registered Society to the Government and recoverable under sub-section (1) may be recovered, firstly, from the property of the registered Society, secondly, in the case of a Society the liability of the Members of which is limited, from the Members, past Members or the estates of deceased Members subject to the limit of their liability and thirdly, in the case of other societies from the Members, past Member or the estates of deceased Members: Provided that the liability of past Members and of the estates of deceased Members shall in all cases be subject to the provisions of Section 31. 149. Powers of Financing Bank to proceed against Members of registered Society.-(1) Where a Member of a registered Society has committed default in the payment of any debt due by him to such Society, such Society shall take action for the recovery of the debt within such time as may be prescribed. (2) Where any registered Society is unable to pay its debts due to the Financing Bank by reason of its Members committing default in the payment of debts due to such Society and if such Society fails to take action for the recovery of the debt within the period prescribed under sub-section (1) or in the opinion of the Financing Bank to which such Society is indebted, the action taken by such Society is not adequate, the Financing Bank may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery which is being taken or may be taken and after giving such Society an opportunity of making its representations, take action against such defaulting Members for the recovery of the debts. (3) Where the Financing Bank takes action against the defaulting Member the provisions of this Act, the Rules and the bylaws shall apply as if all references to the registered Society or its Board in the said provisions were references to the Financing Bank. 150. (3) Where the Financing Bank takes action against the defaulting Member the provisions of this Act, the Rules and the bylaws shall apply as if all references to the registered Society or its Board in the said provisions were references to the Financing Bank. 150. Powers of the Registrar to issue certificate for recovery of sums due from Members of registered Society:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force and without prejudice to any other mode of recovery which is being taken or may be taken under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the Registrar may, on the application made by a registered Society for the recovery of any sum due to it from any of its Members and after making such enquiry as he deems fit, issue a certificate for recovery of such sums: Provided that every application under this sub-section shall be accompanied by a statement of accounts in respect of the sums to be recovered from the Member: Provided further that no such certificate under this sub-section shall be issued unless the Member concerned has been given an opportunity of making his representation. (2) A certificate issued by the Registrar under sub-section (1) shall be final and conclusive evidence of the sum due to the registered Society from its Members and the same may be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue and for the purposes of such recovery, the Registrar shall have the powers of a Collector under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864)." ( 9. ) REVERTING back to the case on hand, assuming that the suit is not maintainable and the landlord has to raise a dispute under Section 90 of the Act, before an Arbitrator, Section 152 of the Act provides for appeals, which states as follows: "(1) Any person aggrieved by- (a) any decision or Award passed or order made or proceedings taken under sub-section (1) of Section 87, sub-Section (2), sub-Section (3) or sub-Section (4) of Section 90, Section 118, Section 199, Section 143, Section 144 or Section 167; or (b) any Award of an Arbitrator or Arbitrators under sub-Section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 90; or (c) any Award of an Arbitrator under Section 100, may appeal to the Tribunal: Provided that nothing contained in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section shall apply to- (i) any decision, order or Award under sub-section (2), sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 90 in respect of any matter relating to, or in connection with, the Constitution of the Board including any election thereto; or (ii) any decision, order or Award under sub-section (2), sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 90 in respect of any matter relating to, or in connection with, any matter not being a money claim; (iii) any order of transfer, reference, withdrawal or re-transfer of a dispute under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 90." ( 10. ) READING of the provisions contained in Section 152 of the Act, makes it clear that in respect of any matter, relating to or in connection with the constitution of the Board, including any election thereto, or any matter, not being a money claim, any person aggrieved by any decision, order or award under sub-section (2), sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 90, cannot prefer any appeal to the Tribunal. Sub-Sections (3) to (5) of Section 152 states that, "(3) Any appeal under sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) shall, subject to the other provisions of the Act, be preferred within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision, order, Award, refusal, registration or approval complained of, but the Appellate Authority may admit an appeal preferred after the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period. (4) In disposing of an appeal under this Section, the appellate Authority may, after giving the parties an opportunity of making their representations pass such order thereon as the Appellate Authority may deem fit. (5) Subject to the provisions of Sections 153 and 154, the decision or order of the Appellate Authority on appeal shall be final." Section 153 of the Act deals with revision and it reads as follows: "153. Revision: (1) The Registrar may of his own motion or on application, call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him or of the board or any officer of a registered society or of the competent authority constituted under sub-section (3) of section 75 and the Government may, of their own motion or on application, call for and examine the record of the Registrar, in respect of any proceedings under this Act or the rules or the by-laws not being a proceeding in respect of which an appeal to the Tribunal is provided by sub-section (1) of section 152 to satisfy himself or themselves as to the regularity of such proceedings, or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein; and, if, in any case, it appears to the Registrar or the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he or they may pass orders accordingly: Provide that every application to the Registrar or the Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceedings, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant. (2) No order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under sub-Section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representations. (3) The Registrar or the Government, as the case may be, may suspend the execution of the decision or order pending the exercise of his or their power under sub-section (1) in respect thereof. (4) The Registrar or the Government may award costs in any proceedings under this section to be paid either out of the funds of the society or by such party to the application for revision as the Registrar or the Government may deem fit" ( 11. (4) The Registrar or the Government may award costs in any proceedings under this section to be paid either out of the funds of the society or by such party to the application for revision as the Registrar or the Government may deem fit" ( 11. ) SECTIONS 154 and 155 of the Act deals with review and execution of orders passed in appeal, revision and review and the said sections are extracted hereinafter: "154. Review:- (1) The appellant or the applicant for revision or the respondent may apply for the review of any order passed under Section 152 of Section 153 on the basis of the discovery of new and important facts which, after the exercise of due diligence, were not then within his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the order was made or on the basis of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason: Provided that no application for review shall be preferred more than once in respect of the same order. (2) Every application for review shall be preferred within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The decision or order passed on the application in review shall be final. (4) The Authority Competent to pass orders on an application for review may pass such interlocutory orders pending the decision on the application for review as that Authority may deem fit. (5) The authority referred to in sub-section (4) may award costs in any proceedings for review to be paid either out of the Funds of the registered society or by such party to the application for review as it may deem fit. 155. Execution of orders passed in appeal, revision or review:- Any order passed by the Tribunal, the Registrar or the Government under SECTIONS 152, 153 or 154, shall be enforced by such Authority and in such manner as may be prescribed." ( 12. 155. Execution of orders passed in appeal, revision or review:- Any order passed by the Tribunal, the Registrar or the Government under SECTIONS 152, 153 or 154, shall be enforced by such Authority and in such manner as may be prescribed." ( 12. ) SECTION 156 of the Act bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts and the said SECTION is extracted hereunder: "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no order or Award passed, decision or action taken or direction issued under this Act by an Arbitrator, a Liquidator, the Registrar or an officer authorised or empowered by him, the Tribunal or the Government or any officer subordinate to them, shall be liable to be called in question in any Court and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act." Chapter XI of the Rules famed under the Act deals with execution and rule 115 states the procedure for delivery of immovable property resumed for breach of assignment or allotment. Rule 116 deals with application for execution of decree and the said rule is extracted hereunder: "116. Application for execution of decree.-(1) Every decree holder seeking recovery under Section 143 of any sum due under a decree shall apply to the Registrar within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arose in Form No.41 which shall be signed by the decree holder. (2) Every decree holder shall deposit such sum towards the fees payable for the processes of execution as specified by the Registrar." ( 13. ) SUB-Rules 19 and 20 deal with procedure on receipt of application for execution of decree and mode of processing against the properties of judgment debtor and the said rules are extracted hereunder: "119. Procedure on receipt of application for execution of decree.-(1) On receipt of the application under sub-rule (1) of Rule 116, the Registrar shall verify the correctness and genuineness of the particulars set forth in the application with the records, if any, in his office and prepare a demand notice in writing in duplicate in the form specified by the Registrar setting forth the name of the judgment-debtor, the amount due and forward it to a Sale Officer. (2) If the judgment-debtor resides or the property to be proceeded against is situated in a district other than that in which the cause of action arose, the Registrar to whom the application is made shall forward the application and the demand notice to the Registrar, within whose jurisdiction the judgment-debtor resides or such property is situated. (3) Whether the application is for the recovery of any amount due under a decree or an order of a Civil Court, the Registrar shall apply to the Civil Court which passed the decree, or order for the transfer to him of the said decree or order and the records specified in Rule 6 of Order XXI in the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) and on receipt of such application, the Civil Court shall transfer them to the Registrar. 120. Mode of proceeding against the properties of judgment-debtor-(1) The decree-holder may indicate in his application made under sub-rule (1) of Rule 116, whether he wishes to proceed in the first instance, against the immovable property mortgaged to the decree-holder or any other immovable property or to secure the attachment of movable property. (2) Unless the decree-holder has indicated in his application, the order in which the property of the judgment-debtor shall be proceeded against, execution shall, ordinarily, be taken in the following manner, namely:- (i) movable property of the judgment-debtor shall be first proceeded against, but nothing in this clause shall preclude the immovable property being proceeded against simultaneously in case of necessity. (ii) If there is no movable property, or if the sale proceeds of the movable property or properties attached and sold are insufficient to meet in full the demand of the decree holder, the immovable property mortgaged to the decree-holder or other immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtor, may be proceeded against." ( 14. ) REFERENCE under Section 90 of the Act, to the Registrar, depends upon the nature of dispute, viz., (1) touching upon the constitution of the Board or (2) the Management or the business of a registered Society. ) REFERENCE under Section 90 of the Act, to the Registrar, depends upon the nature of dispute, viz., (1) touching upon the constitution of the Board or (2) the Management or the business of a registered Society. In the case on hand, the plaintiff-Bank has let out a portion of a property to the defendants, under Ex.B25, lease agreement, dated 31.01.1997, on payment of rent of Rs.460/- per month, and for the purpose of expansion of the banking business, the plaintiff required the premises and issued a quite notice, dated 06.01.1998, to the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession. Subsequently, a lawyer?s notice, dated 20.04.1998, has been issued. Thereafter, under Ex.B3, dated 26.03.1999, a notice, terminating the tenancy on 30.04.1999, has been issued, for which, a reply, under Ex.B4, dated 26.04.1999, has been given. As the learned counsel for the defendant has restricted his contention only to the limited extent of maintainability of the suit, on the ground that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any dispute, between two Co-operative Societies, as per Section 90(d) of the Act, there is no need to advert to other issues and in the light of the submissions, this Court is required to consider, as to whether a dispute regarding tenancy between two societies, one not being the member of the other, can be brought within the ambit of Section 90 of the Act, for the reason, that the dispute referred to under sub-Section (d) of Section 90, is referable only to the dispute, stated in sub-Section (1), which is evident from the expression "such dispute", found in sub-Section (d) of the Section. In this context, this Court deems it fit to consider a decision of the Apex Court in Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal reported in 2010 (3) SCC 786 , wherein, it has explained the latin expression "ejusdem generic" as follows: "The Latin expression "ejusdem generic" which means "of the same kind or nature" is a principle of construction, meaning thereby when general words in a statutory text are flaked by restricted words, the meaning of the general words are taken to be restricted by implication with the meaning of restricted words. This is a principle which arises "from the linguistic implication by which words having literally a wide meaning (when taken in isolation) are treated as reduced in scope by the verbal context.". This is a principle which arises "from the linguistic implication by which words having literally a wide meaning (when taken in isolation) are treated as reduced in scope by the verbal context.". It may be regarded as an instance of ellipsis, or reliance on implication." ( 15. ) ADMITTEDLY, in the case on hand, the dispute between the parties has no relation to, or in connection with the Constitution of the Board. Now let me consider, whether the dispute between the parties would fall within the expression, "touching upon the management or the business of the society". ( 16. ) IN R. Dalmia v. The Commissioner of INcome-Tax reported in 1977 (2) SCC 467 , the term "Management" includes the act of managing by direction, or regulation, or administration or control or superintendence. IN Ghansyamdas Badrilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in AIR 1969 MP 186 , it is held that the "Management" of the market does not mean, merely, the administrative management or superintendent of the market yard. It also includes directing and controlling in a particular manner the use of the market yard. As per words and phrases, by West Publishing Co., Permanent Edition, Vol.26, Page 357, the term "Management" is ?the Board of Directors? or ?the apex body? or ?Executive Committee?, at the helm which guides, regulates, supervises, directs and controls the affairs of the Society. Another meaning of the term "Management", may be; ?the act or acts of managing or governing by issuing direction, guidance, superintendence, regulation and control the affairs of the society. In Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., v. P.R. Mankad reported in 1979 (3) SCC 123 , a terminated employee approached the Labour Court, alleging that he was terminated illegally, which constituted an act of victimization, on account of his trade union activities. On the preliminary objection that the application filed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, was not maintainable, as it was a Co-operative Society governed by Gujrat Co-operate Societies Act, under which, only the Registrar or his nominee had jurisdiction to decide the dispute and that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application of the workman, the Labour Court overruled the objection and held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application. The appellant-Bank filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. The appellant-Bank filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. When the matter was taken to the Apex Court, finding that the dispute relating to termination on account of unfair labour practice, did not fall under the words, "Constitution, Management or Business", the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 37, held as follows: "Be that as it may, what has been directly bidden "out-of-bounds" for the Registrar by the very scheme and object of the Act, cannot be indirectly inducted by widening the cannotation of ?management?. A construction free from contextual constraints, having the effect of smuggling into the circumscribed limits of the expressing "any dispute", a dispute which from its very nature is incapable of being resolved by the Registrar, has to be eschewed. Thus considered a dispute raised against the Society by its discharged servant claiming reliefs such as reinstatement in service with backwages, which are not enforceable in a Civil Court, is outside the scope of the expression "touching the management of the Civil Court, is outside the scope of the expression "touching the management of the society" used in Section 96(1) of the Act of 1961, and the Registrar has no jurisdiction to deal with and determine it. Such a dispute squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the B.I.R. Act." ( 17. ) IN Morindaco-op Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Worker?s Union reported in 2006 (6) SCC 80 , the plaintiff-Union therein filed a suit, seeking for a declaration to the effect that the members of the plaintiff union were entitled to the benefit of the variable dearness allowance, on the basic wages plus fixed allowance, in accordance with third wage board report, with certain consequential reliefs. The defendant took up a stand that since a notice under Section 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, was required, the suit was not maintainable and further contended that since the dispute of the nature raised in the suit touched the constitution, management or business of the Co-operative Society, they were required to be referred to "Arbitration" under Section 55(1) of the Act. Thus, on the above pleading, one of the issues raised for consideration was whether the suit was maintainable. The trial Court held that the suit was maintainable. The appellate Court confirmed the decision. Thus, on the above pleading, one of the issues raised for consideration was whether the suit was maintainable. The trial Court held that the suit was maintainable. The appellate Court confirmed the decision. Before the High Court, it was urged that the first appellate Court had lost site of the expression "business of the society" used in Section 79 of the above Act, which would necessarily include financial involvement concerning payment of salary and allowance to the plaintiff-Union and that therefore, the dispute of the nature raised, touched the constitution, management or business of the co-operative society and hence, the matter ought to have been referred to arbitration. While considering the above contention, with reference to the object of the society, the Supreme Court, tested the correctness of the order of the High Court in the light of the principles laid down in O.N. Bhatnagar v. Rukibai Narasindas reported in 1982 (2) SCC 244 , Co-op. Central Bank Ltd., v. Addl. INdustrial Tribunal andDeccan Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain reported in 1969 (1) SCR 887 and it is worthwhile to extract paragraphs 9 to 11 from Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mill?s case. "9. This Court in O.N. Bhatnagar v. Rukibai Narasindas ( AIR 1982 SC 1097 ) observed inter alia as follows: "IN the present case the society is a tender co-partnership type housing society formed with the object of providing residential accommodation to its co-partner tenant members. Now, the nature of business which a society carries on has necessarily to be ascertained from the object for which the society is constituted, and it logically follows that whatever the society does in the normal course of its activities such as by initiating proceedings for removing an act of trespass by a stranger, from a flat allotted to one of its members, cannot but be part of its business. It is as much the concern of the society formed with the object of providing residential accommodation to its members, which normally is its business, to ensure that the flats are in occupation of its members, in accordance with the bye-laws framed by it, rather than of a person in an unauthorized occupation, as it is the concern of the member, who lets it out to another under an agreement of leave and licence and wants to secure possession of the premises for his own use after the termination of the licence. It must, therefore, follow that a claim by the society together with such member for ejectment of a person who was permitted to occupy having become a nominal member thereof, upon revocation of licence, is a dispute falling with the purview of Section 91(1) of the Act." (Underlined for emphasis) 10. IN Deccan Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd., v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain (1969 (1) SCR 887) it was held as follows: "Five kinds of disputes are mentioned in sub-section: First, disputes touching the constitution of a society: secondly, disputes touching election of the office bearers of a society: thirdly, disputes touching the conduct of general meeting of a society: fourthly, disputes touching the management of a society: and fifthly disputes touching the business of a society. It is clear that the word "business" in this context does not mean affairs of a society because election of office-bearers, conduct of general meetings and management of a society would be treated as affairs of a society. IN this sub-section the word "business" has been used in a narrower sense and it means the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society which the society is authorized to enter into under the Act and the Rules and its bye-laws." 11. IN Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and others etc. v. Additional INdustrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others etc., [ 1969 (2) SCC 43 ] it was held that alteration of the conditions of the service of the workman would not be covered by the expression "touching the business of the society". IN Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and others etc. v. Additional INdustrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others etc., [ 1969 (2) SCC 43 ] it was held that alteration of the conditions of the service of the workman would not be covered by the expression "touching the business of the society". It was held inter alia as follows: "Applying these tests, we have no doubt at all that the dispute covered by the first issue referred to the INdustrial Tribunal in the present cases could not possibly be referred to decision to the Registrar under Section 61 of the Act. The dispute related to alterations of a number of conditions of service of the workmen which relief could only be granted by an INdustrial Tribunal dealing with an industrial dispute. The Registrar, it is clear from the provisions of the Act, could not possibly have granted the reliefs claimed under this issue because of the limitations placed on his powers in the Act itself. It is true that Section 61 by itself does not contain any clear indication that the Registrar cannot entertain a dispute relating to alteration of conditions of service of the employees of a registered society: but the meaning given to the expressing "touching the business of the society". IN our opinion, makes it very doubtful whether a dispute in respect of alteration of conditions of service can be held to be covered this expression. Since the word "business" is equated with the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the society, and since it has been held that it would be difficult to subscribe to the proposition that whatever the society does or is necessarily required to do for the purpose of carrying out its objects, such as laying down the conditions of service of its employees, can be sad to be a part of its business, it would appear that a dispute relating to conditions of service of the workmen employed by the society cannot be held to be a dispute touching the business of the society." (Underlined for emphasis) ( 18. ) WITH reference to the above decided cases, while adjudging the issue as to whether the dispute touching upon the business of the society, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the nature of business, which the Society carries on and from the object, for which, the society is formed and what the society does in the normal course of his activity, i.e., the concern of the society, formed with the specific object and that the business of the society should be equated with the actual trading or commercial or similar business activity and the expression touching the business of the society and refer to the above said aspects. In the case on hand, admittedly the nature of the business of the plaintiff is a commercial banking activity, carried on continuously and systematically, which includes deposits of the customers, loan and advances/investments in various forms of transaction with the Central Government Banks, etc. There is absolutely no averment or evidence to prove that the organized course of activity of the plaintiff, is in the nature of housing society, engaging themselves in trading, either in selling or letting out the properties for the board of the society for the plaintiff or any other society. The dispute should cover only those which are capable of being resolved by the Registrar or his nominee. The dispute which has arisen in the present second appeal cannot be resolved and remedied by the Registrar or his nominee under Section 90 of the Act. ( 19. ) IN Dr. Manohar Ramachandra Sarfare v. The Konkan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., reported in AIR 1962 Bombay 154, after considering the provisions of Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Acts, 1947, a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, held that only the Courts referred to S.28 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, will have jurisdiction to decide a similar dispute between two members of the Society or between a member of the society and a nominal member of the society, if the relationship between them is that on landlord and tenant. This judgment is not applicable to the case on hand, as the appellant/defendant in the case on hand, before this Court, is admittedly, not a member of the respondent-Co-operative Bank Ltd. ( 20. This judgment is not applicable to the case on hand, as the appellant/defendant in the case on hand, before this Court, is admittedly, not a member of the respondent-Co-operative Bank Ltd. ( 20. ) IT is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that as per Section 90(d) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted to entertain a suit for delivery of vacant possession. As per the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, orders passed on appeal or revision, shall be final. At this juncture, it should be noted that where a Statue gives a finality to the orders of the Special Tribunals or authorities constituted, there should be an adequate remedy and sufficient procedure contemplated under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, conferring powers on the authorities under the Act, to do, what the Civil Court would normally do, in the suit and in such circumstances, there can be an inference that the Civil Court?s jurisdiction is ousted to adjudicate the dispute. Admittedly, no provision under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants, conferring powers on the authority under the Act, to decide a dispute regarding the tenancy, between the one society and another, the former not being the member of the latter. A combined reading of the provisions expressly ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and the provisions conferring the powers on the Registrar for execution of decrees, orders and awards, do not by any stretch of imagination, confer under the scheme and the object of the Act, any power on the Registrar, to entertain "any dispute", not falling within the ambit of (1) Constitution of the Board, and (2) Management or Business of the Society. The dispute referred in sub-Section (1) of Section 90, should be circumscribed only to the statutory limitations and it cannot be extended to other disputes, which would be amounting to enlarging the scope and scheme of the Act and that as rightly observed by the Supreme Court, it would be "out of bombs" for the Registrar to assume jurisdiction, which by necessary implications, is ousted. ( 21. ( 21. ) AS pointed out, the expression "bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts" provided under Sections 141, 146 and 156 of the Act, do not deal with the dispute touching upon the tenancy of one co-operative Society with the another, if the former is not a member of the latter. But if the dispute touches upon the Management of the Co-operative Society, then, on the construction of the statute, there is express bar of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. ( 22. ) ON the facts and circumstances of the present case and reading of the statutory provisions makes it clear that the rights or eligibility out of tenancy and the question in that regard, the remedy what the Civil Courts are normally empowered to do in a suit are not provided under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder, creating an absolute bar to the suits instituted to determine the tenancy between one society and another. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that a Civil suit would not lie to adjudicate a tenancy, not falling within the definition of dispute under Section 90 of the Act, is not tenable. In the light of the above discussion, relating to the three important parameters, required to be satisfied to bring in the dispute, within the jurisdiction of the Registrar, the statutory provisions, providing express bar of institution of the suits, under Sections 141, 146 and 156 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, by necessary implication, except the disputes, covered under Section 90 of the Act and considering the principles of law laid down in interpreting the expressions, "Management" "touching upon the society", this Court is of the view that the substantial questions of law raised by the defendants, on the facts and circumstances of this case, are answered in negative and therefore, there is no manifest illegality in the judgments and decrees of the Court below, warranting any interference. ( 23. ) IN the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Three month?s time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, is given to the appellant to quit and delivery of the vacant possession.