The amendment of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act by Maharashtra Act No. XIX of 1976 did not affect the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court to deal with disputes between members of a Co-operative Society under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

CHANDURKAR J.- The respondent No. 1, who is the owner of a flat in a building owned by the respondent No.. 2, which is a Co-operative Housing Society, took a proceeding against the Petitioner far possession of the flat on the ground that the Petitioner, who was originally a licensee, was not entitled to be in possession because the licence Was terminated. There is no dispute that under the provisions of section 91 (2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as it was then in farce, the dispute was referred to the Officer on Special Duty by the Registrar far being dealt with. This dispute commenced on 15th March 1969. Prior to that, however, on 21-7-1968 the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord") started ejectment proceeding under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act against the Petitioner. It may be stated that this application far ejectment was dismissed for default on 16-8-1973. The Petitioner had also. made an application far fixation of standard rent before the Small Cause Court in 1969 alleging that he was a tenant. The rent agreed, according to him, was originally Rs. 300 per month. In that proceeding on order for payment of interim rent at Rs. 120 per month was made.

2. In 1970, it appears that because the landlord's application for ejectment was pending, as also the application for fixation of standard rent by the Petitioner was also pending, the Officer an Special Duty to whom the dispute was referred, made an order postponing the proceeding under section 91 sine die. Indeed, the order expressly states the pendency of the proceedings in the Small Cause Court as the reason far adjourning the proceedings by the Officer an Special Duty, and the dispute was kept pending "until the question of fact and law is decided in Small Cause Court."

3. It appears that after the landlord's ejectment application was rejected, the Petitioner filed a suit on 22-8-1973 in the Court of Small Causes far a declaration that he was a tenant. The landlord had applied to the Officer on Special Duty for restarting the proceeding. This application was rejected by the Officer on Special Duty on 8-10-1974. In a revision application filed against this order before the Co-operative Appellate Court, the Court directed the Officer on Special Duty to re-examine the entire matter. Consequent upon this direction, the Co-operative Court to whom in the meanwhile the proceedings came to be transferred decided on 2-8-1976 to proceed with the matter.

4. Before the Co-operative Court, one of the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act had been amended by Maharashtra Act No. XIX of 1976 as a result of which a new section 41 was substituted in place of the old section 41 and, according to the petitioner, in view of the new provision now made in section 41, the proper forum in respect of immovable property in Bombay in a claim relating to recovery of possession between licensor and a licensee was the Small Cause Court and, therefore, the Co-operative Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. This contention was negatived by the Co-operative Court which held that the over-riding provision in section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was unaffected by the amendment of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and that the only effect of the new provision was that while the jurisdiction to entertain suits in the City of Bombay before the amendment vested in the Small Cause Court, in the City Civil Court and in the High Court, depending upon the value of the property, after the amendment all the suits would have to be filed in the Small Cause Court. The Co-operative Court, therefore, fixed the dispute for a hearing. This order of the Co-operative Court was challenged before the Co-operative Appellate Court.

5. The Appellate Court held that since the Society was joined as a party to the dispute as a co-disputant, the dispute before the Co