A dispute between a member of a Co-operative Society and his licensee does not touch the business of the Society and is not covered by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Registrar or his nominee does not have jurisdiction to try and dispose of such a dispute.

DESHPANDE J.-Respondent No.7, hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' defendant No. 3 is a Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as a tenant co-partnership type of Housing Society. The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'the disputant or licensor' is a member of the said Society. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are hereinafter referred to as ‘defendants Nos. 1 and 2 or licensees' and are not the members of the Society. Cousin of the disputant one Mrs. Gool Chugani purchased flat No. 26 on the 5th floor of the building of this Society and held it as a member thereof. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 obtained the said flat on leave and license basis from her in the year 1964. Defendant No.2 is the proprietor of defendant No. 1 concern. In the month of January 1966 Mrs. Gool transferred her membership and right, title and interest in the society and the flat in dispute to the disputant. After revoking. licence the disputant raised a dispute by an application dated September 1, 1967 before the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bombay, and claimed possession of the flat and arrears of compensation from defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The Society also was impleaded as defendant No.3.

2. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 claimed tenancy of the suit premises alleging further that it was created with the consent of the Society. Existence of any dispute under section 91 of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Registrar or his nominee, Officer on Special Duty, and propriety of impleading the Society as defendant No.3 was also challenged.

3. When the matter came before the Officer on Special Duty for decision on the preliminary point as to the existence of the dispute and application of section 91 of the Act, he upheld the claim of the disputant by his order dated February 14, 1968. Revisions by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies was rejected but further revision to the State Government was allowed and defendant's plea was accepted by order dated July 5, 1969. It is the legality of this order that is challenged in this Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

4. The grievance of Dr. B. R. Naik, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in regard to the order dated July 5, 1969 of the Government in revision is well founded. Government has assumed without any evidence that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were the tenants of the premises and, therefore, the Court created under the Rent Act alone was competent to try the dispute. Admittedly no evidence has been recorded and revisions were preferred against the order passed at preliminary stage without any opportunity to parties to prove their respective cases. The order of the State Government, therefore, is liable to be quashed.

5. The real question that falls for consideration in this case is whether a dispute like the one raised in this case by a member of a Society against her licensee for possession of the flat in the Society is covered by section 91 of the Act and whether the Registrar or his nominee, the Officer on Special Duty, is competent to try and dispose of such dispute? Admittedly, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are not members of the Housing Society. Apart from their claim of being tenants of the premises, the question of existence of dispute attracting section 91 of the Act and consequently the jurisdiction of the Officer on Special Duty at this initial stage shall have to be determined by reference to the averments in the application raising the dispute. The disputant herself avers that opponents Nos. 1 and 2 are her licensees. Hon these averments by itself section 91 is found to be inapplicable and the Officer on Special Duty is found to have no jurisdiction, any further question of inquiring into the plea of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as being the tenants of the premises in dispute cannot arise. Mr. Dhanuka, the learned advocate appearing for defenda