JUDGMENT - B. LENTIN, J.:---Hammersmith Industrial Estate consists of ground and 3 upper floor, comprising in all about 104 Industrial Units. The 2nd respondent is the owner of one such Industrial Unit, namely, Unit No. 210 admeasuring 365 square feet on the ground floor of the building "Hammersmith", situate at Sitaladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Bombay. The owner of the various industrial units in this building have formed themselves into the Hammersmith Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., namely the 1st respondent-Society. 2. On 28th December, 1969, a leave and licence agreement was entered into between the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner in respect of Unit No. 210 for a period of 11 months commencing from 1st January, 1970 at a monthly compensation of Rs. 365/- with the options for renewal of the agreement. In this Unit No. 210, the 1st petitioner and his son carried on business in the name and style of Print Wings Commercial Printers, namely the 2nd petitioner. 3. After this leave and licence agreement was entered into as aforesaid the 1st respondent-Society was constituted on 8th May, 1970 by the purchasers of the various units in the building "Hammersmith." 4. On 23rd November, 1970, the leave and licence agreement was extended for a further period of 11 months. On 30th September, 1972, the leave and licence agreement was again extended for yet a further period of 11 months. With two more options to the petitioners. On 1st February, 1973 the leave and licence was subsisting. 5. On 25th August, 1975, a dispute was filed before the 4th respondent viz. the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, by the 1st respondent-Society and the 2nd respondent, for eviction of the petitioners from Unit No. 210. There after an undated and unsigned cyclostyled order of satisfaction was passed by the 4th respondent, referring the dispute to the 3rd respondent, viz. the 3rd Co-operative Court. This order containing several blanks was passed behind the petitioners back and without giving them any hearing. On 7th June, 1976, the 3rd respondent passed an order directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 6,000/- for payment to the 2nd respondent within 15 days. the 3rd Co-operative Court. This order containing several blanks was passed behind the petitioners back and without giving them any hearing. On 7th June, 1976, the 3rd respondent passed an order directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 6,000/- for payment to the 2nd respondent within 15 days. Thereupon, on 29th June, 1976, the petitioners filed the present petition for an appropriate writ to set aside the arbitration case on the file of the 3rd respondent and for quashing and setting aside the undated and unsigned cyclostyled order passed by the 4th respondent and order dated 7th June, 1976 passed by the 3rd respondent. 6. When the matter was called out before me today, the respondents were absent. An affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioners. No affidavit-in-reply has been filed. Hence the statement of facts contained in the petition stand uncontraverted. 7. Dr. Naik, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, urged that having regard to the fact that the licence was created by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioners on 28th December, 1969 and that the 1st respondent-Society was registered about 4 months thereafter, namely on 8th May, 1970, the dispute disclosed in the arbitration case could not fall within the purview of section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In support of this contention, Dr. Naik relied joint he decision of the Supreme Court in (I.R. Hingorani v. P.K. Shah)1, A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court 2161. In that case A the owner of a flat, entered into a leave and licence agreement with B in 1959. Thereafter in 1962 a Housing Society was formed and A became its member. In 1963 B applied for fixing his monthly "compensation" (Rent) and in that litigation A moved the Registrar for referring the dispute to arbitrator. It was held by the Supreme Court that when A entered into the agreement with B, A was not acting as a member of the Society but as the owner of the flat, with the result that the case did not fall within section 91(1)(b). In the light of this decision of the Supreme Court, this ground of challenge urged by Dr. Naik must succeed. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer (a). In the light of this decision of the Supreme Court, this ground of challenge urged by Dr. Naik must succeed. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer (a). The petitioners shall be at liberty to withdraw the balance of the amount lying with the Prothonotary and Senior Master, deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order passed on 20th July, 1976. There will be no order as to the costs of the petition. Rule is made absolute accordingly. ------