S. BHATTACHARJEE Vs. S. B. GOSAVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside an order dated Feb. 7/9, 1967, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bombay, holding that a dispute within the meaning of section 91 (1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) exists between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and referring the same to Mr. V.S. Powale, Registrar's Nominee, and an order dated April 5, 1967, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bombay, confirming the decision of the Assistant Registrar.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of flat No. 43 in a building known as "Divyang" situated at Colaba. Respondent No. 4 claims to be the present owner of the said flat.

(3.) By an agreement dated Nov. 26, 1959, Radia Sons and Company Private Limited let out to the petitioner the said flat at a rent of Rs. 21S p.m. In March 1963 there appeared to be certain negotiations between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 was negotiating for purchase of tie said flat from Radia Sons and Company. He, therefore, before purchasing the said flat negotiated with the petitioner for giving vacant possession to him of the said flat. The letter dated March 21, 1966, addressed by respondent No. i to the petitioner states that the petitioner had told respondent No. 4 that after the marriage of the petitioner's daughter he would not require the big flat viz., flat No. 43, and that he would vacate the same as he would not be able to pay the compensation for it. There was no reply to this letter. Thereafter, in April 1966 respondent No. 4 purchased the said flat from its then owner and informed the petitioner about the purchase. The petitioner admits that he has thereafter paid at least one month's rent to respondent No. 4. On June 29, 1966, respondent No. 4 served a notice on the petitioner to quit the said flat and to hand over vacant possession of the same to respondent No, 4. The petitioner replied to the said letter on July 4, 1966, taking several contentions.