VISHWANATH MARUTIRAO GAIKWAD DR Vs. DNYANESHWAR RAMCHANDRA KOTKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has filed a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Co-operative Societies Act, challenges the order dated 4-4-1989 of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court dismissing his dispute. The Co-operative Appellate Court has dismissed the petitioners appeal and upheld the order of the trial Court on the ground that the respondent whose eviction is sought by the petitioner is a protected tenant under section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rate Control Act, 1947 and cannot be evicted under section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act.

(2.) THE petitioner, a member of respondent No. 2 Jawaharnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. , Kolhapur, filed a dispute against the respondent Dnyaneshwar Ramchandra Kotkar alleging that he is unauthorisedly and illegally occupying the premises of respondent No. 2 society, viz. , Block No. B-14, Plot No. 6/65.

(3.) THE petitioner has alleged in the dispute that the suit plot is in possession of respondent No. 2 from 1967 and that he is occupying that plot as a trespasser. The Co-operative Court found that respondent No. 2 inducted respondent No. 1 in the year 1967. The society allotted the plot in favour of the petitioner after the decision of the dispute by the Co-operative Court which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. He, therefore, filed the dispute as a member. The trial Court found that respondent No. 1 is in exclusive possession of the plot on 1-2-1973 i. e the date on which the licensees are conferred the status of a protected tenant under section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act as inserted in the Act by Maharashtra Act No. XVII of 1973. Relying on the admitted position that it is no ones case that the licence of respondent No. 1 is terminated before 1974, the trial Court found that respondent No. 1 is entitled to the status of a protected tenant. On evidence, the Co-operative Court found that respondent No. 1 was inducted by the society which has accepted the rent from respondent No. 1.