The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Dispute filed by the Respondent No.1 Society was within limitation under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, as the Petitioner's occupation was unauthorized and illegal, making the Petitioner a trespasser. The court also emphasized that the Petitioner failed to establish adverse possession, as required under Article 65, and rejected the plea of adverse possession due to lack of pleadings and evidence.

1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 19/09/2014 passed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai by which order the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 herein being Appeal No.31 of 2014 came to be allowed and resultantly the order dated 12/07/2013 passed by the Co-operative Court No.I, Mumbai in Dispute No.CC/I/1032 of 1993 dismissing the Dispute came to be set aside, and the Dispute in turn came to be allowed.

3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above Writ Petition can be stated thus:

The Respondent No.1 is a Cooperative Housing Society and is classified as a “Tenant Copartner-ship Housing Society”. The dispute relates to Flat No.22, situated on the 3rd Floor of the building of the Respondent No.1 herein. The said flat would be herein after referred to as “the suit flat”. The Respondent No.1 herein filed the Dispute in question for seeking possession of the suit flat from the Petitioner herein on the ground that the Petitioner was in illegal occupation of the suit flat. In so far as the suit flat is concerned, the same was originally standing in the name of Shri Khemchand Ghorumal Mehrotra who expired on 12/12/1973 leaving behind the Respondent No.2 herein as his only heir. It appears that at the relevant time the Respondent No.2 was residing at, and pursuing his profession as a Solicitor in London. It appears that the wife of the Respondent No.2 herein Smt. Aruna Vishwambhar Mehrotra got the suit flat transferred in her name by representing that she is the heir of late Khemchand Ghorumal Mehrotra. However, it seems that later on the Respondent No.2 and his wife Smt. Aruna Mehrotra arrived at a amicable settlement by virtue of which the said Smt. Aruna Mehrotra consented to the transfer of the flat in the name of her husband i.e. the Respondent No.2 herein. The Respondent No.1 herein – Society subsequently transferred the suit flat as also the share certificate and issued maintenance bills in the name of the Respondent No.2 herein i.e. Shri Vishwambhar Khemchand Mehrotra.

It seems that the said Smt. Aruna Mehrotra in the year 1975-1976 inducted the Director of the Petitioner one Shri A.K. Mishra in the suit flat. It appears that the said Director represented to Smt. Aruna Mehrotra that the suit flat was required to carry out the export business activities of the Petitioner. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 Society that the Petitioner was inducted without the consent of the Respondent No.1 Society and in violation of the bye-laws of the Society and therefore the Petitioner was in wrongful occupation and was in occupation by way of a trespasser. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 Society that the Petitioner was presumably inducted by Smt. Aruna Mehrotra however without taking the consent of the Respondent No.1 Society for such induction of the Petitioner in the suit flat. As a result the occupation of the suit flat by the Petitioner was illegal and unauthorized. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 Society that it was therefore entitled to see to it that the Petitioner vacates the suit flat and hands over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit flat to the Respondent No.1 Society, and since the Petitioner is not a member of the Respondent No.1 Society it is also liable to pay mesne profits for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit flat.

4. The cause of action for filing the Dispute in question was the apprehension of the Respondent No.1 Society that the Petitioner who is not the member of the Society is trying to sell and dispose of the suit flat to a third party and/or is trying to sub-let or induct a third party and/or create rights in favour of the third party in the suit flat. The Respondent No.1 Society i.e. the Disputant in the said Dispute therefore prayed that interim and ad-int