JUDGMENT

B.C. RAY, J:— This Appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th August 1983 passed in Writ Petition No. 1907 of 1983* by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the. writ petition and confirming the judgments and orders by the Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Tribunal made in Appeal No. 280 of 1978 and by 2nd Co-operative Court, Greater Bombay allowing the application of respondent Co-operative Society filed under See. 91(l) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 directing eviction of the respondent No. 2, member of the Society as well as the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 who are trespassers from its flat No. 7 in the building of the disputants "Fairfield," Churchgate Reclamation, Bombay 20. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent "Fairfield Co-operative Housing Society" which is a "Tenant Co-partnership Housing Society" under Registration No. B 1412 of 1955 owned the suit premises. The respondent No. 2 Smt. Vishni J. Kalwani as a member of the Society was allotted Flat No. 7 in the 1st Floor of the suit premises for residing therein with members of her family. The respondent No. 2 permitted the appellant No. 1 M/s. A.V.R. and Co. to possess and occupy the said flat as a licencee without the consent of the Society and in breach of bye laws and Regulation No. 4 of the Societys Regulations contained in Form No.A of the Societys bye-laws. It has been alleged in the dispute application that the respondent No. 2 obtained the flat as a member only for investment purposes and she was profiteering by letting out the flat to other persons contrary to the Bye-laws and Regulations of the Society.

* Reported in 1984 co-op T. J. 85 (Bom)

The Society after coming to know of this position served a notice on March 10, 1973 on her asking her to vacate the flat. In the said notice it was alleged that the respondent .No. 2 parted with the possession of the flat without the Societys consent and in contravention of the Bye-laws and Regulations of the Society. The Society also alleged that the occupants of the flat were a source of nuisance and annoyance to other members of the society and further that she had been a persistent defaulter in payment of Societys dues which by the date of notice had come to Rs. 10,004.38 Paisa. The notice sent to :Respondent No. 2 was not replied to. Thereafter the Society sent another letter stating all these facts. The respondent No. 2 did not comply with the request. The Co-operative Society, respondent No. 1, filed a dispute against the respondent No. 2 who is a member for possession of the said flat given to her. The Society also joined the appellant Nos. 1 and 2, the two occupants as opposite parties and sought for possession from all the opponents. The Society prayed for an award against the respondent No.1 Smt. Kalwani for a sum of Rs. 10,004.38 with future interest thereon as mentioned in the dispute application.

2. The respondent No. 2 Smt. Kalwani did not file any written statement and remained absent. The appellant No. I M/s. A. V. R. & Co. who was opponent No. 2 in the dispute application filed a written statement contending inter alia that the dispute was barred by jurisdiction as the opponent No. 1 Smt. Kalwani was a tenant of the Society, that the appellant No. I was in exclusive occupation of the said flat as the licencee of the respondent No. 2 and now, their sister concern M/s. J.R. Enterprises, the appellant No. 2, were in occupation of the premises as licencees. It was due to this the Society subsequently impleaded the appellant No. 2 as opponent No. 3 in the dispute application. It was further contended that their occupation of the suit premises was under the leave and licence agreement which continued even after 1st February, 1973 and so the appellant No. 2 are protected under the provisions of Bombay Rent Act as amended. They denied that they were causing any nuisance or annoyance to other mmbers of the Society. T