Notion of Moti on Nos 802 and 1222 1993 in Suits Nos. 1093 and 1959 1993 of 1993

15th July, 1993

Cases Cited:
(1992) 1 Bom CR 152 (Rel. on) [Para 5]

JUDGMENT

ORDER :-Facts in the background, subject matters, cause of actions and reliefs claimed are identical in both the suits herein. Parties are also common in both the suits. The order impugned in both the suits, which is main cause of action, is also common. Therefore, applications herein are disposed of with a common judgment.

2. The crux of the dispute is the availing of the benefit conferred upon the occupants of the old building under the amended provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 in particular Chapter VIII-A thereof introduced in the year 1986 (for brevity's sake hereinafter referred to as the said Act) whereby, on fulfilment of requisite conditions under the said Act, the occupants of such old buildings are allowed to form a Co-operative Housing Society under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, in the interest of its better preservation. Various conditions precedents to the said advantage under the said Act will be noticed later on. One of the requirements is the joining of not less than 70% of the occupiers of the building in such scheme. The hot bed of controversy in both these suits, as would be noticed, revolve over the said aspects. There are two groups in the occupants of the building in question. One being affiliated and owning allegiance to the owners of the building, which has opposed the formation of the Co-op. Housing Society as proposed by the group of the other occupants.

(Hereinafter, for convenience and for brevity's sake, the occupiers who have proposed the formation of the Housing Society is referred to as "Proposing Occupiers" and occupiers and owners opposing the said proposal are referred to as "opposite group".)

3. The authorities under the said Act have given approval to the proposal for formation of Co-op. Housing Society to the proposing occupiers rejecting the objections of the opposite group, which group in the first instance challenged the order of approval of proposal in Writ Petitions being Nos. 2 of 1993 and 139 of 1993 before this Court, which petitions came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on 9th March, 1993 and now these two suits have been filed challenging the order of approval of the proposal.

4. The plaintiffs in First Suit being No. 1093 of 1993 are claiming to be the occupiers in the opposite group, whereas plaintiffs in the Second Suit being No. 1959 of 1993 are the Owners landlords of the building in question., The common defendants in both the suits are the State of Maharashtra, Housing Board, Land Acquisition Officer and the members of "opposite group".

5. Before I embark on consideration of the facts, a little deviation has become necessary. The constitutional validity of the amended provision of the said Act in particular Chapter VIII-A was subject matter of challenge in this Court in a Writ Petition being No. 2673 of 1986 filed by the various owners of the buildings affected by the said Amendment in which the owners i.e. plaintiffs in the Second Suit were also the petitioners. By Judgment dated 13th December, 1991, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the petition upholding the provisions of Chapter VIII-A as being intra vires to the Constitution and as having saved by Art. 35-C of the Constitution (The said Judgment is reported in (1992) 1 Bom CR 152). It is stated that S.L.P. filed in the Supreme Court against the said decision is admitted and is pending.

6. Having thus noticed the broad spectrums of factual aspects, and how parties are arrayed against each other, relevant facts in the dispute are stated hereinbelow.

7. Straightway to the facts.

i) The building in question being the subject matter of the Suit is known on Daulat Villa situated on Plot No. 548 E, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Matunga, Bombay (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as the "said building"). Undisputedly the said building has been constructed prior to 1st September, 1940. The year of its construction is stated to be somewhere around 1930. The said building is falling in the category of 'A' as per categorisation done and effected by the Housing Board Authorities under the provisions of Section 84 and subjected to levy of case as provided under Sec. 82 of the said Act. It is thus a "cessed" building within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It is noticed that somewhere in the year 1983 the Repair Board under the said Act undertook certain repairs to the said building. Further the said building comprises of ground plus two upper floors. The municipal record made available so also from the material before the Court, it is noticed that each floor of the said building comprises of two flats.

ii) According to the "proposing occupiers" there are six tenaments in the said building occupied by six occupiers. In addition, there is one room on the terrace of the said building, and total strength of the tenament of the said building is 6 + 1 = 7.

iii) In the month of May, 1986 a proposal was submitted by the "proposing occupiers" numbering 5 out of 6 under the provisions of Chapter VIII-A of the said Act, to the Executive Engineer, with a request for according sanction for the formation of Cooperative Housing Society named as Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The occupier of the 6th flat who did not join the proposal was none other than the owners/landlords themselves. The proposal was submitted by Shri Anil Goenka on behalf of the said Society acting as its Chief Promoter. Said Anil Goenka is the son of Dipmohan Goenka - the occupant of one of the flats in the said building and who is a common

defendant No. 7 in both the Suits. In the said proposal the occupants furnished the necessary data and particulars required to be furnished under the provisions of the said Act for according sanction for the formation of the Co-operative Housing Society of the occupiers. The proposals inter alia mentioned the objects as (i) for carrying out structural repairs, (ii) for the better preservation of the building, and (iii) more than 70 per cent. of occupers joining the Scheme.

8. The landlords/owners who came to know about the submission of the proposal of the proposing occupiers, objected before the Authorities of the Housing Board on the ground that the proposal submitted was not tenable under the provisions of the said Act. It was pointed out that the building was subjected to repairs somewhere in the year 1982-83 and therefore it needed no structural repairs. The building was in sound state of condition. Further it was stated that 70% of the occupiers had not joined in the scheme which is one of the vital requirements of the statute to avail of the benefit of the said Act. The owners, it is noticed from the correspondence exchanged and made available, contested the claim of the proposing occupiers with regard to the total strength of occupiers of the said building, claiming that there were in all 13 occupiers of the said buildup and not 6 or 7 as represented by the proposing occupiers and submitted before the Board Authorities separate list of 13 occupiers, wherefrom, it is noticed that in the flat in their (i.e. owners) occupation there were 3 occupiers. Further the owners also claimed, that, as the additional F.S.I. i.e. Floor Space Index for two additional flats was available to the said building under the Development Control Rule of the Municipal Corporation, the said two flats proposed to be constructed in future be also taken into account as being occupied by two additional occupiers. They also stated having already created two separate tenancies in respect of such proposed constructed flats. Likewise, the owners also pointed out they having created tenancy in the year 1983, in respect of garage in favour of S. A. Ramachandran, who is plaintiff No. 5 in First Suit and defendant No. 13 in Second Suit. The parallel organisations comprising of the owners and the occupiers of the divided flats, garage and flats to be constructed, was formed known as "Daulat Villa Renters Association, which also made representations before the Authorities under the Act opposing the proposal of proposing occupiers. More comment would be made in this respect later on.

9. Continuing the narration of the course and sequences of the events, it is noticed that the Executive Engineer on the receipt of the proposal inspected the said building and made a report being dated 4th July, 1986 copy whereof has been annexed by the plaintiffs in the Second Suit in their affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 25th June, 1983, at page No. 65. The Executive Engineer in his said report approved the proposal of the occupants noting that the same was for better preservation in view of the existing condition of the building. Thereafter the matter was further processed. The same was forwarded to the Government who also accorded their approval and then the matter was finally referred to the Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the said Act for taking steps for acquisition under the provisions of the said Act. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter processed the matter further in the direction of acquisition of the said building by issuing notices to all concerned including the owners. It is noticed that the owners as well as opposing occupiers submitted their statements and answers before the S.L.A.O. The owners as stated earlier pointed out to S.L.O. that somewhere in the year 1983 they let out their fiat by dividing into 3 parts to M/s. Ajanta Warehousing Co., Chandraben C. Shah and Urmilaben Shantilal. It may be stated that all the occupants are related to the owners. Similarly with regard to the Block-C on the first floor the owners stated that the said block was divided into two parts C-1 and C-2 and each part was separately let out to Shri R. V. Ramani since deceased and Rammklal Hemji. It was the case of the owners that the two blocks which were proposed to be constructed as a result of availability of F.S.I. were also let out to two different occupants namely Dharmendra Nagra and Girdharlal Somaya. It needs to be

stated, however, that the terrace flats were not constructed at the time when the proposal was approved and the position remains the same even today. However the Owners and Renters Association sought to assert before the S.L.A.O. that the occupants of the said flat to be constructed also be treated as existing occupiers for computing 70% of the occupiers. Besides the Owners and Renters Association also sought to contend that two garages on the ground floor be also treated as separate tenaments and one of the garage out of two was let out to Shri S. Ramachandran since the year 1983 who was then a elected member of the Municipal Corporation and who was having his office in the garage. On this basis, the Owners and Renters Association contended that there were in all 13 occupiers of the said building and therefore the proposal submitted by the occupiers being only five the same did not fulfil the requirement of 70% as required under the statute.

10. The Special Land Acquisition Officer proceeded to hold and conduct the inquiry on the background of rival claims on behalf of the occupiers. The claim put forth by and on behalf of Owners and Renters Association i.e. opposite group with regard to the number of occupiers was strongly contested and disputed by the proposing occupiers inter alia pointing out that the owners have created false tenancies in respect of the flat which was in their occupation by sub-dividing the same and these occupiers shown as occupants of the divided parts were no one than the relatives of the owners. The occupiers also denied that the garages were considered as premises as being in occupation of the occupants independently. They claimed that garages were attached to the main flats in the building.

11. The S.L.A.O. who held detailed inquiry called upon the Owners and Renters Association to submit the documents with regard to their occupation such as rent, rent receipts, Ration Cards and other documents. However, on behalf of opposite group no documents except, the rent receipts issued by owners ware produced. The S.L.A.O. therefore rejected the various objections raised by and on behalf of the opposite group comprising of Owners and Renters Association and gave approval to the proposal of formation of the Co-operative Housing Society by order dated 18th December, 1992 which is sought to be impugned in the present suits, and as stated earlier the same was also sought to be challenged in the Writ Petitions.

12. Principally the said order dated 18th December, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order) has been challenged on the following four grounds.

i. That the said building did not require structural repairs at the relevant time i.e. in the year 1986 so as to bring under the provisions of Chapter VIII-A of the said Act.

ii. The condition that minimum number of 70% of the occupiers joining the scheme was not fulfilled.

iii. That the opposite group comprising of Owners and Renters Association were not given adequate opportunity by the S.L.A.O. to put their cases, and

iv. Mala fide.

13. By and large the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties addressed before the Court on the above four grounds. Certain authorities were also cited, mainly on the principle of natural justice and mala fide. The arguments were addressed on the basis of pleadings of the parties the gist of which has been adverted to hereinabove.

14. To appreciate the grounds of objection raised by and on behalf of the opposite group i.e. Owners and Renters Association noted above it will be necessary to note certain salient features of the statutory provisions on the point. The said Act namely the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 was enacted in the year 1977 and made operative in December, 1977. In the year 1986 the said Act was amended by introducing Chapter VIII-A in the said Act. The objects of the said Act including the 1986 amendment have been set out in the preamble itself. On account of rapid growth in industrial and urban areas and fast growth of

population the need of housing accommodation had become accute and urban areas and particularly in Greater Bombay the old buildings, constructed long back have outlived their lives and were in bad state of repairs presenting dangerous possibility of collapse. Due to inability of the Government to generate sufficient financial resources and to persuade the owners to undertake the task, it was decided by the Legislature to find out a solution by ensuring participation of the occupiers in stupendous took of the work of structural repairs or reconstructions for better preservation, with ultimate object of making occupiers as owners of the premises on formation of Co-operative Housing Societies.

15. To appreciate the issues raised and the present controversy in these Suits, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions as contained in the said Act. Section 82 empowers the authorities under the Act, to levy Cess on the old buildings, while Section 84 authorises the authorities to classify and categorise the various buildings. The buildings which were constructed prior to 1940 were categorised as Category 'A' buildings as in the instant case and there is no dispute on this score.

16. As noticed earlier the principal controversy in the matter herein hinges over two factors, namely, who are the occupiers to be eligible to avail of the benefit of the scheme under the Act, in particular Chapter VIII-A and extent of structural repairs. Sub-Section (25) and Sub-Section (36) of Section 2 of the said Act defines, respectively, "Occupier" and "Structural repairs" as under :

(25) "occupier" includes -

(a) any person who for the time being is paying or is liable to pay to the owner the rent or any portion of the rent of the land or building in respect of which such rent is paid or is payable;

(b) an owner in occupation of, or otherwise using, his land or building;

(c) a rent-free tenant of any land or building;

(d) a licensee in occupation of any land or building; and

(e) any person who is liable to pay to the owner damages for the use and occupation of any land or building."

"(36) "structural repairs" for the purposes of Chapter VIII means repairs or replacement of decayed, cracked, or out of plumb structural components of a building or any substantial part thereof or any part to which the occupiers have common access, such as, stair-cases, passages, water closets or privies by new one of the like material or materials, or of different material or materials including change in the mode of construction like converting load bearing wall type or timber framed structure to an R.C.C. one, or a combination of both, which repairs or replacement in the opinion of the Board, if not carried out expeditiously, may result in the collapse of the building or any such part thereof, and "structural repairs" includes repairs and replacement of all items which are required to be repaired or replaced as a consequence of the repairs or replacement aforesaid which are carried out or to be carried out, and also repairs and replacement of the roof (but not replacement of the tiles only) and of the drain pipes (including house gullies) fixed to the building, which, if not repaired or replaced simultaneously with structural repairs would cause further damage to the building. When such repairs to any building or any part there of are carried out by the Board the building shall be deemed to be structurally repaired under this Act."

17. It will be necessary to state that the definition of "occupier" is inclusive definition and includes various types of occupiers as listed and mentioned therein. Similarly the definition of structural repairs is more descriptive. More later on.

18. Next most relevant and vital provisions is as contained in Sec. 103-B of the Act.

"103 B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the provisions of Chapter VIII or any other law for the time being on force or in any agreement, contract, judgment, decree or order of any Court or

Tribunal to the contrary, a co-operative society formed or proposed to be formed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, by not less than seventy per cent., of the occupiers in a cessed building may, by written application, request the Board to move the State Government to acquire the land together with the existing building thereon (or where the owner of the building does not own the land underneath or appurtenant to such building but holds it as a lessee or licensee, or where any person holds the building or the land underneath or appurtenant to such building or both under a lease or licence, then to acquire the right or interest of such owner or person in or even such building or land or both as lessee or licensee together with the existing building thereon) hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as ("the land") in the interest of its better preservation or for reconstruction of a new building in lien of the old one and intimate their willingness to pay the amount of such acquisition as may be determined under the provisions of this Chapter and to carry out the necessary structural and other repairs or, wherever necessary, to reconstruct a new building, as the case may be, at their own cost."

"Explanation I - In this Section the expression "seventy per cent. of the occupiers" means the seventy per cent. of the occupiers on the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Second Amendment) Act, 1986, and include their successors-in-interest or new tenants inducted in place of such occupiers, but does not include the owner or the occupiers inducted by virtue of creation of any additional tenancies or licences by the owner after the date of commencement of the aforesaid Act."

"Explanation II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."

"(2) On receipt of the application made under Sub-Section (1), the Board shall, after due verification and scrutiny, approve the proposal if it considers that it is in the interest of better preservation of the building or to be necessary for reconstruction of a new building and shall direct the co-operative society, whether registered or proposed, to deposit with the Board within the period specified by it in that behalf thirty per cent. of the approximate amount that would be required to be paid to the owner if the land is acquired and give intimation in that behalf to the owner."

"(2A) Where, after the date of application made under Sub-Section (1),

(a) any owner has undertaken the work of any repairs to the building; or

(b) the percentage of the occupiers who had initially agreed to become members of the co-operative society formed under Sub-Section (1) is reduced to less than seventy per cent of the occupiers as a result of some members opting out, or due to the number of additional tenancies or licences created in the building thereafter or due to any other reason whatsoever, then the power of Board to approve the proposal shall not be affected, and notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (1), the Board shall approve the proposal and directed the co-operative society to deposit the approximate amount as required under Sub-Section (2)."

19. The plain reading of the Sec. 103B, relevant portion quoted above postulates the prerequisite for the application of the said provisions.

I. Building must fall in 'A' category.

II. Building must be "cessed".

III. The proposal must emanate from the occupiers.

IV. The strength of the occupiers joining the Scheme must not be less than 70 per cent.

V. The occupiers must clearly indicate therein their willingness to contribute for the acquisition.

VI. The occupiers must also agree to carry out the necessary structural and other repairs or reconstruction, if necessary.

VII. And prime object of the proposal must be in the interest of better preservation or for new construction.

20. Explanation I to Section 103B(1) makes it explicit seventy per cent of the occupiers to mean those occupiers in a building as on date of commencement of 1986 amendment, which is 1st of February, 1986 and those occupiers inducted thereafter are excluded for being eligible to join the Scheme. Sub-Section (2A) provides the eventualities on and after submission of application by the occupiers, such as, owners carrying out structural repairs or any occupier or occupiers subsequently withdrawing from the scheme resulting in reduction of seventy per cent occupiers. The said Section provides that such eventualities would not operate as an impediment for the consideration and approval of the proposal.

21. In the context, Section 103L is also noteworthy feature of the Act as it gives overriding effect to Chapter VIII-A of the Act over the other Act, etc

22. Having thus noticed the relevant statutory provisions, it would be easier to thrash out the points and issues raised as mentioned above, in the light of material placed before the Court and submissions made across the bar which were based on the pleadings of the respective parties already adverted to hereinabove.

23. It is contended by the opposite group that the said building needed no structural repairs at the relevant time when proposal was made. It is pointed out that in the years 1982-83, the Board carried out repairs to the said building. According to them the building is structurally sound and in support reliance is placed on the reports of their expert Architects and Structural Engineer. It is therefore submitted that the provisions of Chapter VIII-A of the Act are inapplicable in the instant case.

24. I do not find any merits in the said objection. It is undisputed position that the building in question has been constructed prior to 1940 and it is falling under the Building Category 'A' under the said Act. The building is subjected to levy of Cess. In the year 1982-83, the authorities under the Act were required to undertake repairs which included structural repairs. This clearly demonstrates that in the year 1982-83 the building was in the bad state of affairs and required repairs as the owners have not bothered, to carry out the repairs. In the year 1986 when the proposal was submitted the proposing occupiers in Clause 15 depicts the picture with regard to the condition of the building.

"15. The above building was repaired by the Repair Board in January, 1983 in one single phase. But the water leakage which is still there right from the terrace is still there, since they had not taken up the work of water proofing which is right from the terrace."

25. On receipt of the proposal the Executive Engineer inspected the said building and made a report on 4th July, 1986 and this is what he observes :

"ii) No major structural repairs are required. The external walls portions require strengthening by replastering and colour washing or cement paint.

iii) There is the seepage of water in walls due to leakages in drainages, pipe joints, terrace under water proofing, roots of shrubs etc. This need be attended immediately by removal of shrubs and repairs to drain pipes etc.

iv) The terrace is of china mosaic flooring, however hair cracks have been observed due to which slight leakage is there through terrace. This need be arrested by sealing hair cracks by cement slurry paint. The intention of the proposed society for better preservation, in view of above, need be considered. The building or any portion thereof does not require any reconstruction."

26. The part of the report of Executive Engineer extracted above would clearly indicate the condition of the said building hardly 3 years after its repairs, and with the passage of time, it will deteriorate further presenting danger of collapse. Building being subjected to cess, the owners are not obliged to undertake repairs. The Government have no resources and the occupiers will be left in the lurch. To avoid and remedy such malady

that the Act has been enacted. The structural repairs and better preservation of the building cannot be read and considered in isolation. Sub-Section (1) of Section 103(B) postulates "in the insterest of its better preservation". This shows that the Act takes into account the future fate of the occupiers of the old building and this is amply manifested from the provisions of Sub-Section (2A) of Section 103 of the Act, which lays down that repairs carried out subsequent to the submission of the proposal would not defeat the object of the Act.

27. The next question is in respect of number of occupiers. The definition of "occupier" in the Act reproduced above, is an inclusive definition and covers number of categories of occupiers. It is however important to bear in mind, in particular in the light of various provisions as contained in Chapter VIII-A of the said Act, as to who will be the occupiers entitled to the benefit of the Scheme and how their numerical assessment to be made.

28. As noticed the building comprises of ground floor plus two upper floors. The Municipal extract produced shows that there are 6 flats plus one terrace room making total of 7 tenaments. According to the opposing group with owners, 2 flats in respect of which F.S.I. is available be also counted. Landlords plead that in anticipation that 2 additional flats will be constructed, that they in advance have created tenancies in respect of such proposed flats. Further, portion of divided flats occupied by the respective occupiers be also taken into consideration. It may be stated that 2 such flats are divided into 5 parts and owners want to count 5 occupants and not 2 on the basis of tenaments. The moto seems to "the number of occupants be the criteria and not the tenaments". The owners and their supporters also insist for counting an occupant of one garage Mr. Ramachandran, Ex-Municipal Councillor.

29. The occupier implies actual possession. In the context of the provisions of the Act, the occupier is one who is occupier "in a cessed building" (Section 103(1)). Two flats to be constructed as the result of which owners have created "tenancies", having not subjected to levy of Cess, cannot be counted as and there is no merit in the said claim of the owners.

30. As far as 5 occupiers of sub-divided flats are concerned, it needs to be noted that they are, in the first instance and pertinently relations of the owners and are stated to be occupiers of 2 flats, which are with the owners. None of such occupants could produce credible evidence to substantiate the claim of their occupancy before the S.L.A.O. or even before the Court, except the Rent Receipts issued by the owners. This is not Withstanding such occupiers being called upon by the S.L.A.O. so also by this Court to do so. The best evidence of occupancy, such as Ration Cards did not come forth. This exposes falsity and futality of claims of occupancy. The S.L.A.O. has considered and dealt with in his order this aspect and I am in concurrence with the said finding recorded by him.

31. Mr. Ramchandran Ex-Municipal Councillor as being occupier of the garage needs some comment. He too, except Rent Receipts issued by landlord in 1983 and thereafter, has no evidence to prove his occupancy. He claims that he being a social worker, was having his office in the garage. However he could not produce any credible evidence to substantiate the same. It is indeed unfortunate that such an elected representative should join hands to suppress the false claim of the owners and throttle the implementation of the progressive statute like the said Act. Much can be said upon his conduct but this Court leaves the matter at that.

32. To sum up, there are only seven tenaments, including a room on the terrace in the said building. It will be just and logical that while considering the claims of the occupiers, the same should be on the basis of tenament and not on the basis of number of occupiers. It is common knowledge that in the crowded city like Bombay, where there is an acute scarcity of accommodations a single tenament is shared by many occupiers. Same on the basis of exclusive occupancy, in respect of part of the main tenament may have got

protection under statutes, like Rent Act and such legitimate claims would need consideration. It is, however, necessary that for counting and considering the numerical strength of the occupier, the tenament should be considered as a unit. Otherwise, the Board Authorities will face difficulties and the progressive social measures as contained in the Act can be circumvented and frustrated by those opposed to such measures or those who are out to derive gain by false claims. There is a possibility of mischief from either side. This position is made clear to avoid any confusion.

33. I am satisfied with a view as above from the observations appearing, in the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Property Owners' Association (supra reported in (1992) 1 Bom CR 152), directly on the point. This is what luminantly the point has been dealt with in para 12 of the said Judgment needing no further comment.

"Shri Setalwad submitted that Sub-Section (1) of Section 103B is extremely vague and uncertain because right is conferred upon not less than 70% of the occupiers in the Cessed building to move the Board and it is not clear as to whether 70% is to be determined by reference to the actual number of occupiers or the number of tenaments in the Cessed building. The learned Counsel urged that in most of the old buildings in the city, number of tenaments are few, while number of occupiers is very large and if the right to apply is conferred to the number of occupiers irrespective of number of tenaments, then that would create several problems. In our Judgement it is obvious from the plain reading of Sub-Section that the right is conferred to apply provided not less than 70% of the occupiers come together and seek advantage of the Sub-Section and this number of 70% has to be determined with reference to the tenaments and not to the actual number of persons in occupation. The number of persons in occupation may increase or decrease but the number of tenements can never increase or decrease and therefore the true test to determine whether 70% of the occupiers have come together to apply is to find out whether such occupiers are in possession of not less than 70% of the tenaments in the building. In our Judgment the provisions are of beneficial nature and must be construed reasonably so as to achieve the object of legislation."

34. Dealing with the point of opportunity and mala fide, I do not find any merits in the said contentions of the opposing group. From the impugned order, it is evident that S.L.A.O. has considered all the material made available before him. The opposing occupiers as discussed above, have not produced any credible evidence although called upon to do so. The notices were published in the newspapers and the opposing group has responded to the same. It is therefore futile on their part to make grievance of want of opportunity. Equally there is no substance with regard to allegation of mala fide. One of the occupants, who is Chief Promoter of the Housing Society happens to be member of the political party and certain correspondence was addressed or forwarded to the concerned Minister or Member of Parliament and therefore to allege mala fide, to say the least, is prepostumous proposition. It is noticed that even opposing group has corresponded in the matter with the M.L.A.

35. From the conspectus of the above discussion, it is held that there is no case made out by the plaintiffs in both the Suits for grant of any interim reliefs as claimed in the above applications. The order of S.L.A.O. sought to be impugned does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and pertinently it is so also observed by the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the Writ Petitions of the plaintiffs. In the circumstances the applications stand dismissed.

ORDER

1. Notice of Motion No. 802 of 1993 in Suit No. 1093 of 1993 and Notice of Motion No. 1222 of 1993 in Suit No. 1959 of 1993 stand dismissed.

2. Plaintiffs in both Suits to pay the cost in both the Suits to defendant No. 2 in respective Suits.

Order Accordingly