IMPORTANT POINT
The management of a co-operative society includes the recovery of its assets, and disputes regarding such recovery fall within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 4th February, 2019 passed in Appeal No.50 of 2018 by the Co-operative Court, Mumbai allowing the Appeal resulting in quashing and setting aside of the judgment dated 7th April, 2018 passed by the Trial Court in Dispute No.126 of 2006.

2. The facts required to be exposited is that Dispute bearing No. CC/I/126 of 2006 was filed by the Petitioner Society in the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) seeking eviction of the Respondents from the room reserved by the Petitioner as servant quarters. The case of the petitioner was that initially one Diwalibai Hodiyar Waghela, who was the mother-in-law of the deceased Respondent No. 1 was working as a sweeper in the Society and during her employment she was given a residential accommodation free of charge by the Society in Room No.4, which is reserved by the Society for servant. The monthly salary was paid to her and the accommodation was free of charge which had electricity and water connection and the charges were paid by the Society. After the death of Diwalibai, the son of Diwalibai was appointed as a sweeper in her place and was permitted to occupy Room No.4 without any charge. He had given an undertaking that he would surrender the possession of the premises to the Society upon termination of his services and his family members will not have any right in respect of the said room. The son of Diwalibai expired on on 8th January 2002 and thereafter his wife i.e. Rewaben, the deceased Respondent No. 1 started rendering services as sweeper and was being paid monthly salary and permitted to occupy Room No. 4 until her services were terminated.

3. The Petitioner addressed notices dated 14th June 2004, and 20th June, 2004 calling upon Respondent No. 1 to hand over the vacant possession of Room No.4 to the Society, however the Respondent did not hand over the possession. On 10th of June 2005, the Society informed the Respondent No.1 that she had remained absent without intimation of leave and that her services are not satisfactory and if she did not resume services, the Society would be constrained to issue show cause notice for termination of her services. On 29th June 2005, the Society issued show cause notice to the deceased respondent No. 1 on ground of absenteeism from 2nd June, 2005 to 15th June, 2005. There was no response and vide notice dated 15th July, 2004, the services of the Respondent No. 1 came to be terminated with effect from 18th July, 2005. Subsequently, further communication was addressed by the Society to the Respondent, which was not responded by the Respondent No. 1 and as such, the dispute came to be filed under Section 91 of the MCS Act before the Co-operative Court seeking direction to the Respondents to vacate and hand over the peaceful possession of Room No.4 and for payment of mesne profits of Rs.15,000/- per month for occupying Room No.4.

4. The suit came to be resisted by the Respondents, contending that the subject matter of the dispute does not fall under the purview of Section 91 of the MCS Act, as the suit premises was not allotted by the Society and the same was given to the respondent No. 1’s mother-in-law prior to the registration of the Society. It was contended that the suit premises was given by the original landlord of the building to the Respondent No. 1’s mother-in-law who was employed as a sweeper by the then landlord and the rent was adjusted from her salary which was continued by the Petitioner-Society and thus the Respondents are protected tenants. It was denied that the premises were being occupied free of cost or that the water or electricity was supplied free of cost. It was contended that the Respondents had not received any notices or termination letter from the Society.

5. An additional written statement came to be filed by the Respondents on account of the a