2 Smt.
10,004.38 with future interest thereon as mentioned in the dispute application.
The respondent No.
PG NO 86 R. Lalit, Girish Chandra and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
M. Tarkunde, S.K. Dholakia, Y.R. Naik, K. Rajendra Choudhary, K. Shivraj Choudhary, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellants.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Vishni J. Kalwani as a member of the Society was allotted Flat No.
2 who is a member for possession PG NO 87 of the said flat given to her.
PG NO 88 Against this award the appellants number.
7 in the 1st Floor of the suit premises for residing therein with members of her family.
2 obtained the flat as a member only for investment purposes and she was profiteering by letting out the flat to other persons companytrary to the Bye laws and Regulations of the Society.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. RAY, J. This Appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th August 1983 passed in Writ Petition No.
7 in the building of the disputants Fairfield.
The Society prayed for an award against the respondent No.
The Society also joined the appellant Nos.
The respondent No.
Kalwani for a sum of Rs.
They companytended that the right, title and interest of Smt.
1907 of 1983 was dismissed.
1907 of 1983 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissing the writ petition and companyfirming the judgments and orders by the Maharashtra Co operative Appellate Tribunal made in Appeal No.
472 of 1985 From the Judgment and Order dated 9.8.1983 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
Kalwani was a tenant of the Society, that the appellant No.
1 Smt.
The numberice sent to Respondent No.
It has been alleged in the dispute application that the respondent No.
2 as opponent No.
I and 2 filed an appeal being Appeal No.
I M s. A.V.R. and Co. to possess and occupy the said flat as a licencee without the companysent of the Society and in breach of bye laws and Regulation No.
1 filed an appeal but she subsequently withdrew the same.
2 in the dispute application filed a written statement companytending inter alia that the dispute was barred by jurisdiction as the opponent No.
4 of the Societys Regulations companytained in Farm No.
280 of 1978 and by and Co operative Court, Greater Bombay allowing the application of respondent Co operative Society filed under Sec.
2 was number replied to.
The respondent No.
Kalwani the companytribution paid by her in respect of the flat in question.
the two occupants as opposite parties and sought for possession from all the opponents.
CIVIL APPELIATE JURISDTCTION Civil Appeal No.
2 and number, their sister companycern M s. J.R. Enterprises, the appellant No.
1 and 2.
2 member of the Society as well as the appellants number.
B 1412 of 1955 owned the suit premises.
The appellants filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court at Bombay.
A of the Societys bye laws.
1 and 2 who are trespassers from its flat No.
2 in favour of M s. A.V.R. Company for a period of 11 months.
In the said numberice it was alleged that the respondent No 2 parted with the possession of the flat without the Societys companysent and in companytravention of the Bye laws and Regulations of the Society.
2 are protected under the Provisions of Bombay Rent Act as amended.
91 1 of Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960 directing eviction of the respondent No.
It was due to this the Society subsequently impleaded the appellant No.
1 Smt.
2 permitted the appellant No.
2, were in occupation of the premises as licencees.
Churchgate Reclamation, Bombay 20.
1 M s. A.V.R. Co. who was opponent No.
3 in the dispute application.
Kalwani did number file any written statement and remained absent.
The Writ Petition No.
The Society after companying to know of this position served a numberice on March 10, 1973 on her asking her to vacate the flat.
Thereafter the Society sent another letter stating all these facts.
The appellant No.
1973 and so the appellant No.
The respondent No.
280 of 1978 before the Maharashtra State Co operative Appellate Court.
It was further companytended that their occupation of the suit premises was under the leave and licence agreement which companytinued even after 1st February.
2 Smt.
They also denied knowledge about the respondent being a defaulter in payment of Societys dues.
1907 of 1983.
1 was in exclusive occupation of the said flat as the licencee of the respondent No.
10,004.38 p. to the society with interest thereto 9 from the date of filing of the dispute.
The opponent No.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent Fairfield Co operative Housing Society which is a Tenant Co partnership Housing Society under Registration No.
The order directing giving possession was upheld with the modification that award in respect of possession shall become executable on the disputant Society depositing in Court or paying to Smt.
They denied that they were causing any nuisance or annoyance to other members of the Society.
It was filed in the High Court It is a leave and licence agreement executed on 1.9.1969 by the licencee or respondent No.
The Society also alleged that the occupants of the flat were a source of nuisance and annoyance to other members of the society and further that she had been a persistent defaulter in payment of Societies dues which by the date of numberice had companye to Rs.10,004.38 Paisa.
1 was also directed to pay Rs.
The appellate Court held that the claim for possession was number affected by the Bye laws and the appellants were number entitled to protection of Bombay Rent Act.
2 did number companyply with the request.
The Co operative Society, respondent No.
The respondent No.
1,filed a dispute against the respondent No.
