JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J.:---This is a petition taking exception to the passing and confirmation of an award pursuant to the raising of a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the "Act".

2. Points arising for determination in this petition have to be considered in the light of the following :---

Respondent No. 1- hereinafter to be referred to as the "Society" a Tenant Co-partnership Co-operative Housing Society was registered under the Act. It is the owner, manager and controller of a block of flats forming part of what is known as Building No. 'F'. The Society's ancestory goes back to what is known as "Maitri" Co-operative Housing Society Ltd." That Society had two Schemes, one at Chembur Bombay 400 071, and the other at Chembur-400 074. The said Society constructed buildings in both the Schemes. Respondent No. 2 hereinafter to be referred to as the "Member" was a member of the original society in Scheme No 1. As such member, she was in occupation of Flat No. 15 in 'F' building. The member inducted deceased petitioner hereinafter to be referred to as the "Occupant" into the flat. In August, 1972 the parent Society was divided into two units. viz. The Society respondent and another Society administering Scheme No II with which we are not concerned in the present suit. The occupant was inducted into the flat in May, 1969 on a Leave and Licence Agreement, the duration whereof was limited to 11 months. It was on 6-8-1970 that the bifurcation of the parent Society took place giving birth to the respondent Society is this case. On 27-4-1980, the Member requested the society to take steps for the eviction of the Occupant. In Pursuance of this request, a meeting of the Society was held on 12-5-1980, when a resolution to initiate proceedings against the occupant was passed. Thereafter, the Society filed a dispute before the Co-operative Court at Bombay. It as contended that the entire building inclusive of the flat in dispute belonged to the Society and was meant for the sue and occupation of the members thereof. This was governed by the bye-laws, apart from the provisions of the Act and the rule framed thereunder. The occupant had been inducted into a flat without the written consent as required by the bye-laws. The occupant, continuance in possession specially after being asked to vacate was illegal. The flats in the building were residential and despite this the occupant had started a canteen in the disputed flat. Hence, the solicitation for a direction to evict the occupant and restrain the Member form parting with possession to any other person other than the claimant Society. It was requested that the member be enjoined to personally occupy and use the flat as from the date the petitioner vacated the same. The member expresses her anxiety to co-operate with the demand made upon her by the Society, and pleaded that she had failed because of the obstruction raised by the occupant. He had refused to vacate and it was for this reason that she could not personally occupy the flat and do so in conformity with the requirements of the bye-laws. The petitioner contended that the dispute was the result of collusion between the Society and the member. He had been inducted into the premises in the representation of the member that this was in accord with the permission granted by the Society. The Society had acquiesced in this occupation by accepting enhanced and car parking charges for his use and occupation of the flat etc. The Society had stood by for no less a period than 11 years before raising the dispute. It was estopped from questioning the validity of his occupation. The Society was an idle party, and that it was colluding with the member was established by the fact of its not seeking the relief of eviction against the said member. The occupant was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under section 91 because he was not a real nor a nomin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document