JUDGMENT - HALBE A.A., J.:---The important question, which falls for consideration in this revision is whether the dispute regarding the allotment of same plot to the two co-operative societies falls within the business of society as provided under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (to be referred hereinafter as 'the Act') and whether the Civil Court is barred from trying that dispute. Whereas the learned Advocate for the present petitioner/original defendant has taken through several rulings and has tried to suggest that this dispute is within the domain of Co-operative Court, the learned Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff has contended that the rulings cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner have really no bearing on the question under reference and that this is a simple dispute regarding the title claimed by both the societies, which falls within the domain of Civil Court. 2. In order to appreciate these rival contentions, brief reference to few facts appears to be necessary. The plaintiff/society in Regular Civil Suit No. 178/86 comprises of members belonging to Collectorate and Commissionerate of Aurangabad and the Government was pleased to allot to this society Survey No. 63 at Aurangabad, admeasuring 26013 sq.metres of land consisting of 14 plots, each measuring 2000 sq. metres. The said society carried out the layout, paid the betterment charges. The site allotted to the plaintiff was thus to be utilized for construction of houses of the members. 3. The defendant society comprising members from the Police Force were also allotted Survey No. 63 of the same village Garkheda, Aurangabad, admeasuring some gunthas, total area 3264 sq.metres. The plaintiff society on being put in lawful possession went to take measurement, when it is alleged that the members of the defendant/society threatened them and obstructed them in carrying out the measurement under the guise that the said plot was allotted to them and that the plaintiff/society or its members could not put up construction on that land. 4. The necessary issue was framed about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try this dispute and the trial Court was of the view that the said dispute fell within the ambit of section 91 of the above Act and thus directed the plaintiff/society to approach the Co-operative Court as envisaged under the above provision. 4. The necessary issue was framed about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try this dispute and the trial Court was of the view that the said dispute fell within the ambit of section 91 of the above Act and thus directed the plaintiff/society to approach the Co-operative Court as envisaged under the above provision. The matter was taken to the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 23/87 came to the conclusion that the dispute squarely fell within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The pertinent observations of the First Appellate Court are that section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act refers to dispute touching Constitution, Elections of Office Bearers, Management and business of the society and that the dispute thereof could be referred to the Co-operative Societies and that impliedly jurisdiction of the Civil Court was excluded. There is explicit provision under section 163 of the above Act, which clearly states that any dispute which is required to be referred to the Co-operative Court, shall be beyond the purview of both the Civil and Revenue Courts. The learned Appellate Judge observed that the word "business" under section 91 of the Act meant actually trading or commercial of business activity of the society, which the society is authorised to enter into under the provisions of this Act. The learned Judge observed that the dispute as described above essentially related to the dispute about the allotment of the plot and thus title over the plot and that there was no dispute relating to the business of the society so as to require the same to be referred to the Co-operative Court. 5. It is this reasoning that has been seriously assailed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner-defendant. The learned Advocate has drawn my attention to section 91 which refers to disputes which have to be referred to the co-operative courts and he has drawn my attention to phrase 'disputes relating to the business of the society' and the same shall be referred to the Co-operative Court. He has also drawn my attention to section 91(1), sub-clause (e) which relates to the above disputes between the parties, which may be any other society or liquidator of such society or even the deregistered society or the official assignee of such deregistered society. He has also drawn my attention to section 91(1), sub-clause (e) which relates to the above disputes between the parties, which may be any other society or liquidator of such society or even the deregistered society or the official assignee of such deregistered society. The argument which he has built up on the basis of this provision is that this is a housing society which is defined under section 2(16) of the above Act and it provides that the housing society is enjoined upon to protect the rights of its members, to provide amenities, to provide better dwelling houses and this would impliedly show that the housing society is required to maintain intact the plot allotted to it and if any dispute arises in regard to that plot, the dispute is covered by section 91 of the Act and hence the matter should be referred to the Co-operative Court. According to him, the scope which is reflected in the above provision relating to housing society indirectly covers the duty cast on the housing society to see that the plot is enjoyed by it and its members without any obstruction and if any construction is sought to be created, it would resist the same by having recourse to the Co-operative Court. In that behalf he has drawn my attention to various rulings and it is necessary to refer briefly to those rulings. 6. He has referred to 1982(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)401 in the case of (O.N. Bhatnagar v. Smt. Rukibai Narsindas and others)1. In that case, there was question of construction of two provisions namely section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act and section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Court observed that if in the event there are averments which show the relationship between landlord and tenant the matter would fall within the domain of Bombay Rent Act whereas if the averments do not speak of jural relationship between the landlord and the tenant, but that of licensee and licensor of a flat, the matter would be governed by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. However, on the question of touching the business of the society, the Court observed that where the society is a tenant copartnership type housing society formed with the object of providing residential accommodation to its copartners/tenants, it logically follows that whatever the society does in the normal course of activities such as by initiating proceedings for removing an act of trespass by a stranger, from a flat allotted to one of its members, cannot be but part of its business. 7. The same view has been followed by the Supreme Court in 1989(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)1, in the case of (Smt. Krishna Rajpal Bhatia and others v. Miss Leela H. Advant and others)2, in that case it was held that where the agreement between a member of the society and another person was embodied in the usual standard form of an agreement for leave and licence for a term of 11 months which was renewed from time to time and there was nothing to suggest that the agreement for leave and licence was merely a device to camouflage the real nature of the transaction viz. creation of a tenancy, such matter would clearly fall within the phrase 'dispute touching the business of the society', when the question of taking possession would arise from the person whose period of licence has expired. Now, from the view enunciated by the Supreme Court in both the above rulings, it is manifestly clear that in the matter of housing societies when there is a dispute relating to allotment and occupation of a flat and further the recovery of possession of that flat by the members from the licensee, the question would fall within the phrase 'dispute relating to business of the society'. This appears to be patently correct in view of the definition of housing society in section 2, sub-section (16) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:--- "housing society" means a society the object of which is to provide its members with open plots for housing dwelling houses or flats; or if open plot, the dwelling houses or flats are already acquired, to provide its members common amenities and services." This definition would clearly mean that when a member is allotted a flat or house and the same is given to third party who has no right to continue after the period of agreement, the society is equally interested in securing the possession from the stranger and this clearly falls within the dispute relating to business of the society. 8. The ruling cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner reported in All India Co-operative Tribunal Journal 1987 C.T.J. 449, in the case of (Yeshwant Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Kum. Sulekha)3, has no bearing over the facts of this case. In that case the Co-operative Bank was involved and the question of recovery of deposits squarely fell within the dispute relating to the society viz. the bank. This is a situation which is crystal clear from the facts of the case. 9. He has also relied on 1982(1) Bom.C.R. 879 , in the case of (Bandra Green Park Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and another v. Mrs. Dayadasi Kalia and others)4, wherein also the occupant/licensee was sought to be evicted as the period of licence had expired and the occupant had become a trespasser. The Court observed that the averments in the plaint that the society had allotted plots for occupation of the members and that the flat was given by the member to a licensee for occupation due to exigencies of employment of her husband and the question relating to recovery of possession from the licensee, therefore, fell within the ambit of 'dispute touching the business of the society'. 10. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has, therefore, urged that in view of these rulings, it should be held that the present dispute relating to land allotted to the petitioner/housing society also permits to the question protection of the land to be allotted to the plot owners and such right of exercising domain over the plot should be referred to the Co-operative Court. 11. 11. The learned Advocate for the respondent in this behalf has urged that the problem should be viewed in the following background: Here is a case where the plaintiff/society has claimed title over the plot allotted to it for which there is a property cared. The defendant/society objected to the plotting on the land of the plaintiff/society on the ground that, that land was allotted to the defendant/society. This is a dispute which relates to the title which is being challenged by the defendant/society. This is a question which relates to the rival title set up by both the societies and such question does not at all come within the phrase 'business of the society'. The word 'business' with reference to the affairs of the society has been defined as the business of the society viz. activities of the society. Such business can be spelt out from the section of the Act, the Rules framed under the Act and the bye-laws of the society. In this behalf no bye-laws are produced and the learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on the above definition of the housing society and that, if provision is looked into, it only provides for allotment of plots and providing common amenities. The business of the housing society does not at all envisage the question of rival title against the other society. In that behalf, section 91, sub-section (1), sub-clause (e) will not come into operation at all. This is a case where the plaintiff is seeking title over the same plot over which even the defendant/society lays claim. By no stretch of imagination, it can contended that the question of title over a plot would fall within the purview of 'dispute relating to business of the society'. Disputes regarding title to properties between societies or erosion of any rights or inflicting encroachments by one society over the other or like disputes between third party and the society would certainly not fall within the scope of the phrase "disputes touching the business of the society". Such disputes shall have to be resolved by the Civil Courts and none else. 12. Incidently, in A.I.R. 1988 M.P. 94, in the case of (Madhyam Vargiya Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha v. Vasantrao and another)5, there is a slight indication to show the magnitude of this phrase. Such disputes shall have to be resolved by the Civil Courts and none else. 12. Incidently, in A.I.R. 1988 M.P. 94, in the case of (Madhyam Vargiya Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha v. Vasantrao and another)5, there is a slight indication to show the magnitude of this phrase. In that case it was observed that where a co-operative housing society had sold a plot to its members, and the member in turn sold it to another person in violation of terms and conditions of sale-deed executed by the society in favour of the member and consequently the society filed a suit against both of them, with a prayer of cancellation of sale deed executed by the member and for removal of construction made by another person, it would not be said that the averments in the plaint raised a question only touching the business of the society within the said Act. This would, therefore, show that when the question other than the question relating to allotment and recovery of possession from the members is concerned, the matter would not fall within section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In this case, it is manifestly clear that one society is raising claim against the other in respect of the same plot. This would be, therefore, no dispute which exclusively falls within the domain of Co-operative Court. On the other hand, it clearly falls within the domain of the Civil Court. The learned Appellate Judge has correctly held that this is not an issue, which should be referred to the Co-operative Court. I, therefore, feel that the civil revision application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed. -----