ORDER There is a co-operative society in the city of Mumbai known as, Chandrodaya Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Society ). The society floated a housing scheme for economically weaker section of the society and under the said scheme the society undertook to construct tenements for allotment to its members. The cost of each tenement measuring 360 sq.ft. was Rs. 17,200/- out of which Rs. 2,000/- was provided as subsidy and Rs. 5,000/- by way of loan by the social welfare department of the government of Maharashtra. The balance of Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid by each member of the society towards the allotment of the tenement. It appears that the society allotted tenement No. 1 in building No. 11 to the appellant herein. Aggrieved against the said allotment, respondent No. 1 herein raised a dispute before the deputy registrar co-operative society praying that the said tenement be allotted to her and the appellant be restrained from entering into the said tenement. The deputy registrar, co-operative society gave an award in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Thereafter the appellant preferred a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and the same was also dismissed. The letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant herein met with the same fact. The view taken by the High Court was that since payment of Rs. 10,000/- by the respondent was earlier in point of time than that of the appellant, the respondent was entitled to allotment of flat No. 1 in building No. 11. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is not disputed that the appellant herein is a promoter member and is architect by profession and has rendered valuable services to the society in the matter of construction of the tenements. It is also not disputed that on 10-10-1977 the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,320/- and on 25-9-1977 the society passed a resolution that in lieu of the services rendered to the society by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 4,300/- be adjusted towards the price to be paid by the appellant for the allotment of tenement in his favour. On 24-11-1977 the appellant further deposited a sum of Rs.2,380/- whereas the respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 9-12-1977. 3. 4,300/- be adjusted towards the price to be paid by the appellant for the allotment of tenement in his favour. On 24-11-1977 the appellant further deposited a sum of Rs.2,380/- whereas the respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 9-12-1977. 3. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the adjustment of a sum of Rs. 4,300/- can be treated as payment towards the price of tenements by the appellant on 25-9-1977. The certificate (exhibit B-1) issued by the society reads as thus: "Est. 1957 Regd. No. B-2670/59 CHANDRODAYA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED Building No. CST Road, Chambur Bombay-400071 Ref.No.CCIIS/38/1979-80 Date: 3rd August, 1980 This is to certify that Shri NARAYAN DADU is promoter member of 15-11-1967 of Chandrodaya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Chambur, Bombay-71 and his contribution paid is as under: Contribution paid upto 10-7-1970 Rs. 3,320 As per Resolution passed by general body meeting on 25-9-1977 expenditure incurred by him to attend the site was sanctioned at Rs. 4300/- (Rupees four thousand three hundred only) and it was considered as equal to Rs. 8000/- the amount towards cost of flat as completed on same day Rs. 4,300 On 24-11-1977 Receipt No. 195 paid Rs. 380 On 24-11-1977 Receipt No. 196 paid Rs. 2200 Total amount paid on 24-11-1977 towards contribution Rs.10,000 Sd/- Hon. Chairman Chandrodaya Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Chambur Bombay-71 4. A perusal of the aforesaid certificate shows that the society acknowledged that the adjustment of Rs. 4,300/- was a payment made on 25-9-1977, the date on which the resolution was passed. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the said adjustment was a part payment towards the price of tenement on 25-9-1977. Consequently it must be held that payment made by the appellant was earlier in point of time than that of the respondent and thus entitled to preference in allotment of tenement. 5. In view of above, the judgment under challenge is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. *************** 00049