CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by the town Co-operative Society Ltd. , Mandya, a Society registered under the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which is aggrieved by the order of the respondent- karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 25th May, 1982, in Appeal No. 35/ 1979 No. 35/1979 (Co-op ). That appeal was preferred by respondents 3 and 4 who had suffered an adverse decree of eviction by way of an award made under sec. 70 of the Act in proceedings initiated by the petitioner Society to evict the said respondents 3 and 4 from premises which had been leased to them by the Society. it would be necessary to state that the Arbitrator who is the 2nd respondent herein took the view that he had jurisdiction to make an award whereby he could direct dispossession of respondents 3 and 4 from the leased premises and put the Society in possession as there were beaches of the conditions of the lease by respondent-3. On appeal, the Tribunal took the view that under Sec. 70 of the Act, the arbitrator could not have assumed jurisdiction to cause eviction of a tenant having regard to the provisions of the karnataka Rent Control Act. ( 2 ) A perusal of the order of the tribunal clearly indicates that they laid stress on the language of Sec. 21 of the rent Control Act, which provided for eviction of a tenant governed by the provisions of that Act only in the manner and procedure provided under that Act and in no other way. However, strenuously it was contended for the Society before the Tribunal that Sec. 70 of the act also equally excluded any other mode of settlement of dispute between a member of the Society and the Society except in the manner provided under sec. 70 of the Act. However, strenuously it was contended for the Society before the Tribunal that Sec. 70 of the act also equally excluded any other mode of settlement of dispute between a member of the Society and the Society except in the manner provided under sec. 70 of the Act. After noticing the arguments advanced by the parties before it, the Tribunal placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v M/s Dalichand jugraj Jain and others [a. I. R. 1969 S. C. 1320] that the Rent Act should prevail in as much as what was the subject matter of the dispute before the Arbitrator was not the business, management or the constitution of the Society, but its stray activity of leasing premises owned by it to one of the members. ( 3 ) FROM the tenor of the order of the Tribunal, it is clear, the test it applied was that it should not make any difference whether a member was the tenant or somebody else was the tenant as far as eviction was only possible under the Rent Control Act. The view was taken by the Supreme Court though by making a passing observation that matter could have been different if the society's sole business was that of constructing premises and letting out the same to its members. But even then the supreme Court has clearly observed, following an English Ruling, that in such cases of conflict between the two Statutes, the Statute which confers special benefits as in the case of tenants in the rent Control Act, the Special Statute should prevail over the general enactment such as the Co-operative Societies act. ( 4 ) IN this view of the matters. I do not think that the Tribunal's order suffers from anyerror of law which calls for interference by this Court. Therefore, this writ petition is rejected after notice to respondents and after hearing the counsel for parties. ( 5 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .