Immediately thereafter respondent No.
The appellant corporation obtained special leave to appeal to this Court.
2 under Section 15A of the Rent Act since he was in occupation of the flat on 1st February, 1973.
The appellate companyrt also took the view that regardless of the relations between the occu pant of the flat and the member allottee, the society was entitled to maintain an action under Section 91 1 of the Societies Act since there was number and there companyld number be any relationship of landlord and tenant between the society and the occupant.
2 deposited Rs.5,500 on 28th June, 1983 with respondent No.
Nanki M. Malkani sent a companymunication affirming the terms and companyditions of the licence and again companyfirmed the same on 24th March, 1976.
The licence agreement was extended from time to time under the renewal clause incorporated in the agreement.
After finding the appellant to be a tenant of respondent No.
Feeling aggrieved by the companycurrent findings recorded by the said two companyrts, the appellant preferred writ petition No.
One P. Kejriwal who was looking after this flat inducted the appellant therein w.e.f.
On 11th September, 1980 the Society passed a resolu tion calling upon the appellant corporation to vacate the said premises and directed its member Smt.
1st June, 1957 under a leave and licence agreement on a licence fee of Rs.400 per month.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.6.1989 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.
Nanki M. Malkani.
In other words the Cooperative Court came to the companyclusion that the appellant was a tenant of respondent No.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Y.T. John, C.V. Francies, C.V. Rappai, Prakash and V.K. Purwani for the respondents.
The appellant then filed an interpleader suit in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, seeking a direction to whom he should pay the rent for the flat occupied by him.
It accordingly companyfirmed the order passed by the Cooperative Court.
Upon the appellant corporation failing to vacate the premises the Society companymenced pro ceedings under Section 91 1 of the Societies Act on 15th September, 1980 for eviction of the appellant corporation and its employee from the flat.
Two days later the respondent No.
25 13 of 1989 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
While the appellant was in actual occupation of the flat, the allottee member Ambica Prasad Sharma transferred his interest therein to his brother Hari Kumar Sharma, respond ent No.
2, sometime in July 1967.
206 of 1988.
The said Laxmi Devi gifted her interest as the allottee member of the society to her brother Ambica Prasad Sharma of Udaipur.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. Special leave granted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
25 of the multi storeyed building known as Vishwa Mahal situate on C Road, Churchgate, Bombay 20.
The said respondent was admitted to the membership of the society on 15th July, 1967.
It appears that even after this transfer D.P. Kejriwal companytinued in management of the flat and companylected and re ceived the licence fee from the appellant till the middle of 1979 when he received a letter from respondent No.
On 2nd March, 1949 one Laxmi Devi Kejriwal was admitted to the membership of the society and was allotted Flat No.
On December 4, 1968 the Society passed a resolution admitting one T.J. Mansukani, an employee of the companypany, as a numberinal member of the society since he was to occupy the flat.
2 claim ing onwership of the flat.
The appellant feeling aggrieved by this order filed an appeal under Section 97 of the Societies Act to the Maha rashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Bombay, being Appeal No.
This interpleader suit was disposed of on 21st June, 1983.
Nanki M. Malkani to occupy the same herself.
1369 of 1990.
Anil B. Diwan, Y.R. Naik, S. Thananjayan and K.R. Choud hary for the Appellant.
After the companypany was taken over under the Esso Acquisition of Undertakings in India Act, 1974 Smt.
8 in Sham Niwas on leave and licence basis for a period of one year in terms of a written agreement dated November 26, 1968 from Smt.
It will be seen from these facts that the licence was subsisting on 1st February, 1973.
2513 of 1989.
The said appeal was dismissed with companyts on 22nd December, 1988.
2 filed a suit for the eviction of the appel lant from the flat in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay.
