Against his order Rajpal Bhatia went up in revision to the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court which by its order dated Ist July 1977 dismissed the revision as number pressed.
Both the parties made a joint application for admission of the said Rajpal Bhatia as a numberinal member of the society and the society granted the requisite permission for his occupying the flat in dispute on terms of leave and licence.
Devibai Advani carried an appeal to the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Tribunal.
Devibai Advani was a tenant company partner member or a tenant owner member.
By an agreement in writing dated 1st January 1964, the disputant the late Smt.
After companysidering the evidence on record, the learned Judge by his judgment dated 28th August 1981 came to a definitive finding that the claim of the disputant was a claim touching the business of the society under s. 91 of the Act that the society is a companypartnership type of society and number of companyownership that the real nature of the transaction between the parties was that embodied in the formal agreement for leave and licence dated 1st January 1964 and further that after termination of the licence the possession of the said Rajpal Bhatia was wrongful.
Devibai H. Advani, who was a tenant companypartner member, permitted the appellants father Rajpal Bhatia, user of her Flat No.
That objection of his PG NO 63 was sustained by the Officer on Special Duty by his judgment and award dated 16th November 1972.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated 16th December 1983 declining to interfere with the judgment and order of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Bombay dated 31st October, 1983.
Guna Amrit Thandani was an owner member.
decided on 12th January, 1979 taking that view upon investigation into the facts, which was upheld by the High Court in O.N. Bhatnagar v. Smt.
Devibai Advani by her lawyers numberice dated 21st May 1969 terminated the agreement for leave and licence.
According, the learned Judge rendered an award directing the said Rajpal Bhatia to vacate and hand over possession of the flat in question.
The appellants father Rajpal Bhatia went up in appeal before the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court but without any avail.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.1983 of the Bombay High Court in W.P No 4356 of 1983.
The learned Officer on Special Duty held that the parties stood in the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and further that the dispute in question did number touch upon the business of the society within the meaning of s. 9 1 of the Act.
The claim as laid by her was that she was a tenant member of the society and that Rajpal Bhatia was in unauthorised occupation.
The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 8th February 1974 allowed the appeal and remanded the case for a decision afresh on the question whether the disputant the late Smt.
271/79, decided on 21st April 1981, and later by this Court in O.N. Bhatnagar v. Smt.
v. Smt.
The learned Judge by his order dated 8th September 1976 recorded a finding that the society, in fact, was a tenant companypartnership type of society and therefore the disputant was only a tenant companypartner member.
16 for a period of 11 months as from that date on the terms and companyditions stated in the said agreement.
The learned Judge allowed the parties to adduce their evidence thereon.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
PG NO 62 S. Krishnamurthy, R.N. Keshwani, Dilip Jhangiani, V.K. Punwani and M.K.D. Namboodiri for the Respondents.
Her claim for eviction was however register by Rajpal Bhatia inter alia on the ground that the transaction between the parties was one of lease and number of licence and therefore the Registrar had numberjurisdiction to enter upon the reference under s. 91 of the Act inasmuch as his jurisdiction to enter upon such claim was barred under s. 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 Bombay Rent Act for short .
1945 of 1984.
The facts of the case are as follows.
At the request of Rajpal Bhatia, the said agreement for leave and licence was renewed for 11 months each by further agreements and thereafter the period was further extended 11 months by an endorsement.
By the impugned judgment the Appellate Court up held the judgment and order passed by the Judge, First Cooperative Court, Bombay dated 28th August, 1981 directing the appellants to vacate and hand over possession of Flat No.
16 on First Floor of Block No.
236/78 Messrs Bharat Sales Service Anr.
Aggrieved, the disputant the late Smt.
8 in the housing companyony known as Shyam Niwas, situate at Warden Road, number called Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay and to pay mesne profits Rs.450 per month and a further amount of Rs.42.50 towards maintenance, car parking and water charges w.e.f.
Mrs. Manik Karanjawala and Ejaz Maqbool for the Appellants.
Ist August 1981.
The late Smt.
On 30th June 1969 she made a claim under s. 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 196 for short the Act before the District Deputy Registrar for the eviction of the said Rajpal Bhatia alleging him to be in unauthorised occupation of her flat.
Thereafter, the dispute came up for adjudication before the learned Judge, First Cooperative Court, Bombay who framed five issues in all.
