SEETA RAMNATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS in the background, subject matters, cause of actions and reliefs claimed are identical in both the suits herein. Parties are also common in both the suits. The order impugned in both the suits, which is main cause of action, is also common. Therefore, applications herein are disposed of with a common judgment.

(2.) THE crux of the dispute is the availing of the benefit conferred upon the occupants of the old building under the amended provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 in particular Chapter VIII-A thereof introduced in the year 1986 (for brevity's sake hereinafter referred to as the said Act) whereby, on fulfilment of requisite conditions under the said Act, the occupants of such old buildings are allowed to form a Co-operative Housing Society under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, in the interest of its better preservation. Various conditions precedents to the said advantage under the said Act will be noticed later on. One of the requirements is the joining of not less than 70% of the occupiers of the building in such scheme. The hot bed of controversy in both these suits, as would be noticed, revolve over the said aspects. There are two groups in the occupants of the building in question. One being affiliated and owning allegiance to the owners of the building, which has opposed the formation of the Co-op. Housing Society as proposed by the group of the other occupants. (Hereinafter, for convenience and for brevity's sake, the occupiers who have proposed the formation of the Housing Society is referred to as "proposing Occupiers" and occupiers and owners opposing the said proposal are referred to as "opposite group".)

(3.) THE authorities under the said Act have given approval to the proposal for formation of Co-op. Housing Society to the proposing occupiers rejecting the objections of the opposite group, which group in the first instance challenged the order of approval of proposal in Writ Petitions being Nos. 2 of 1993 and 139 of 1993 before this Court, which petitions came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on 9/03/1993 and now these two suits have been filed challenging the order of approval of the proposal.