KALAWATI RAMCHAND MALANI Vs. SHANKARRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 7, hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' defendant No. 3 is a Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as a tenant co partnership type of Housing Society. The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'the disputant or licensor' is a member of the said Society. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are hereinafter referred to as ' defendants Nos. 1 and 2 or licensees' and are not the members of the Society. Cousin of the disputant one Mrs. Gool Chugani purchased flat No, 26 on the 5th floor of the building of this Society and held it as a member thereof. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 obtained the said flat on leave and licence basis from her in the year 1964. - Defendant No. 2 is the proprietor of defendant No, 1 concern. In the month of January 1966 Mrs. Gool transferred her membership and right, title and interest in the society and the flat in dispute to the disputant. After revoking licence the disputant raised a dispute by an application dated September 1, 1967 before the District Deputy Registrar, Co -operative Societies, Bombay, and claimed possession of the flat and arrears of compensation from defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The Society also was impleaded as defendant No. 3.

(2.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 and 2 claimed tenancy of the suit premises alleging further that it was created with the consent of the Society. Existence of any dispute under Section 91, of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Registrar or Ms nominee, Officer on Special Duty, and propriety of impleading the Society as defendant No. 3 was also challenged.

(3.) THE grievance of Dr. B.R. Naik, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in regard to the order dated July 5, 1969 of the Government in revision is well founded. Government has assumed without any evidence that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were the tenants of the premises and, therefore, the Court created under the Rent Act alone was competent to try the dispute. Admittedly no evidence has been, recorded and revisions were preferred against the order passed at preliminary stage without any opportunity to parties to prove their respective cases. The order of the State Government, therefore, is liable to be quashed.