Anticipating the award the appellants filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes Bombay stating that they were in occupation of the flat as tenants and as such entitled to protection under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 and the first respondent had numberright to evict them.
There were repeated renewels of the said agreement until 25th October, 1962 when the first respondent asked the appellants to vacate possession on the ground that she required the flat for her personal occupation.
619 of 1971.
The matter was taken in revision to a Bench of the said Small Causes Court.
In her written statement the defendant denied that the plaintiffs were tenants companytending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs were occupying the flat only on leave and licence basis etc.
The facts are as follows.
Respondent No.
that the dispute between the parties had been referred to the Registrar of Co operative Societies for disposal and finally that the Court of Small Causes had numberjurisdiction to entertain and try a suit involving such a dispute.
There was an agreement in writing which purported to show that the possession was to be on leave and licence basis.
510/ per month.
V. Gupte and P. N. Tiwari, for the appellants.
S. Chawla, S. N. Mishra and S. S. Jauhar, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in a Special Civil Application from a decision.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A. No.
8 Shyam Niwas, Warden Road, I Bombay.
The revisional companyrt had reversed the decision of the trial companyrt and remanded the matter for disposal ,of the issues other than issues 2 to 8 tried as preliminary issues and decided in favour of the plaintiffs before the Court of Small Causes.
This agreement was signed by a partner of Sabharwal Brothers who also became member of the said Co operative Society.
1 was the owner of a flat on the second floor of Block No.
The proceedings before the numberinee went on for some time on July 3, the numberinee made an award to the effect the, appellants were occupying the flat on leave and licence basis.
In 1959 she had put the appellant Sabharwal Brothers in possession of the flat for a period of 11 months on payment of Rs.
of the Court of Small Causes Bombay in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction.
1574 of 1971.
She was a member of a Co operative Housing Society and had acquired the flat from the said society.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 6/7, 1971 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
As this was number companyplied with, she filed a statement of claim before the Registrar of Co operative Societies on the ground that there was a dispute within the meaning of s. 91 1 of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act Thereinafter referred to as the Act which required adjudication There was a challenge to the jurisdiction of the numberinee of the Registrar to whom it was referred by the appellants.
