1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the concurrent orders passed at an interlocutory stage by the Co-operative Court and the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court Mumbai. The Trial Court-in a dispute which was filed, being CCI/08/12, has passed an interlocutory order which is in the following terms:

(a) that the petitioner who is respondent No.1 shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the flat on the first floor of the building bearing No.21 within a period of one month from the date of the order, i.e. 21st June 2012.

(b) If the petitioner fails to hand over vacant and peaceful possession, then, the Advocate who is appointed as private receiver shall take possession from the petitioner and hand it over to the first respondent society original disputant.

(c) The petitioner was to be given 15 days advance notice by the Receiver. Thereafter the Receiver was to make a report to the Court regarding compliance. The charges of the Receiver were to be paid by the first respondent society - disputant before the trial Court.

2. Such an interlocutory order was passed below Exh.5 in the said dispute.

3. It was held by the trial court that the dispute which was filed before it had alleged that the petitioner is occupying a flat as a member of the first respondent - original disputant society. The dispute proceeds to allege that Ambaji Niketan Cooperative Housing Society is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. operative Societies Act, 1960. (for short Act). The structure/building belonging to the society stands on the land being C.T.S.No.643, 643/1 to 08 admeasuring 811.40. sq. mtrs. There are 24 members of the society. The building of the society has been constructed in the year 1962. From 20.0.9 onwards, the society was considering re-development of this property by pulling down the existing structure as it is old and requires continued repairs. In such circumstances, from January 20.0.9 onwards in Special General Body meetings and Annual General Meetings, this issue was discussed and debated. Thereafter, resolutions were passed in terms of the discussion at the General body meetings. The resolution passed at the meeting held on 27th December 20.0.9 resolves that the developer-respondent No.2 shall be appointed for undertaking the re-development work.

Accordingly, a power of attorney and development agreement was executed with the developer by the first respondent society. That is dated 29th June 2010. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation issued an IOD on 29th June 2010. Thereafter, the general body resolved that the members should vacate their premises and hand over vacant possession to the developers. The resolution of the general body meeting held on 12th November 20. I.0. has been referred to and eventually after all approvals and permissions, what the petitioners have done is not to comply with the request and resolution of the society. The society states that it has made all compliances and in a special general body meeting held on 29th September 2011, a representative of the Deputy Registrar, M Ward, Konkan Bhavan remained present and in his presence the decision to redevelop the property was taken and the resolution came to be approved. In such circumstances and when the society has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.1,73,63,000/-and 19 members have vacated flats and handed over vacant and peaceful possession thereof to enable the developer to demolish the old building and redevelop the property, then, on account of non cooperation by the petitioner and four others, the project has been stalled.

4. In such a dispute the application for interim injunction has been moved and what has been done thereafter is to serve the copy of the dispute application and the papers and proceedings on the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and objected to grant of any interlocutory relief, much less, mandatory in nature. What