CHAINANI C. J. -These three applications have been heard togther, because they raise a common question in regard to the interpretation of s. 91 of the Mahararhtra CQ -operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The facts in application No. 2048 of 1963 are as under. Respondent No.1 in this application is a member of Shalimar Co -operative Housing Society. As such member he is the holder of a flat on the fifth floor of Shalimar building, which belongs to the society. On April 24, 1959, there was a leave and licence agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.1, by which respondent No. 1 allowed the petitioner to occupy his flat on payment of monthly compensation of Rs. 250 for a period of eleven months. Respondent No. 1 subsequently revoked the leave granted to the petitioner to occupy the flat and on March 8, 1963, called upon the petitioner to hand over Possession of the premises and also to pay arrears of compensation due from him. AJJ the petitioner did not vacate the flat, respondent No.1 made an application to the Registrar that the dispute should be decided under the provisions of the Act. In this application he asked for possession of th