P A NARAYANANA Vs. S SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 for possession of the flat on the ground that the petitioner, who was originally a licensee, was not entitled to be in possion because the licnece was terminated. There is no dispute that under the prcv'sions of Section 91 (2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as it was then in force, the dispute was referred to the Officer on Special Duty by the Registrur for 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 petition. It may be stated that this application for ejectment was dismissed for default on 16-8-1973, The petitioner had also made an application for 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 Rupees 300/-per month. In that proceeding an 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 on Special Duty to whom the dispute was referred made an order postponing the proceeding under Section 1 sine die. Indeed, the order expressly states the pendency of the proceedings in the Small Cause Court as the reason for adjourning the proceedings by the Officer on 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 for 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 cams to be transferred, decided on 2-8-1976 to proceed with the matter.