JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard. Perused the records. 2. The petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Appeals), Mumbai on 22-6-2000 in the Revision Application No. 368 of 1998. By the impugned order, while confirming the recovery certificate dated 10-8-1998, issued by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies against the respondent No. 1, the Divisional Joint Registrar had dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10-8-1998 whereby the Deputy Registrar had upheld the contentions on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and restricted their liability to Rs. 1,10,260.80 ps. 3. The dispute between the parties had arisen on account of the resolution passed by the petitioner-society for recovery of non-occupancy charges at the rate of Rs. 7.50 ps. per sq.ft. per month in relation to non-residential premises and accordingly the demand was made from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in relation to the flat No. B/2, situated on the first floor of the petitioner-society's building at 39, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai. The contention of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was that the said demand was in contravention of the circulars issued by the Government fixing the liability in relation to non-occupancy charges to the extent of 25% of the service charges collected by the society from its members under the circular dated 13-3-1992 and further the collection of such charges to be made only once in terms of the circular dated 9-3-1995 and not annually or monthly. On the other hand, it was the contention of the petitioners that irrespective of the said circulars, the partner of the respondent No. 1 under the letter dated 24-3-1992 had agreed to pay the non-occupancy charges at the rate of Rs. 7.50 ps. per sq. ft. per month and that being a concluded agreement between the parties, it was binding upon the respondents to pay the said amount accordingly. Reliance is placed in that regard in the said letter dated 24-3-1992 in support of the said contention. 4. There is no doubt that under the letter dated 24-3-1992 the partner of the respondent No. 1 had informed the petitioner-society that as desired by the society the respondent No. 1 would pay to the society the non-occupancy charges at the rate of Rs. 7.50 ps. per sq.ft. 4. There is no doubt that under the letter dated 24-3-1992 the partner of the respondent No. 1 had informed the petitioner-society that as desired by the society the respondent No. 1 would pay to the society the non-occupancy charges at the rate of Rs. 7.50 ps. per sq.ft. per month, as recommended by the Managing Committee and approved by the special general body. However, fact remains that the petitioner-society is entitled to claim the non-occupancy charges in accordance with the provisions of law and in terms of the section 79-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Registrar is empowered to issue necessary directions on various matters, including the matter relating to the maximum amount which can be recovered as the non-occupancy charges from the members of the society and in that regard circulars were issued on 13-3-1992 as well as on 9-3-1995 and neither of these circulars permit the petitioner-society to recover the non-occupancy charges at the rate of Rs. 7.50 ps. per sq.ft. per month based on the said circulars issued by the Government. Once it is clear that the claim for the non-occupancy charges can be restricted to certain limit, as fixed under the circulars issued by the competent authorities, and the authorities have accordingly issued such circulars fixing the maximum limit for the amount which can be recovered by the co-operative societies from their members as the non-occupancy charges, merely because by the letter dated 24-3-1992 the partner of the respondent No. 1 had informed the petitioner-society that they would pay the non-occupancy charges at the rate of Rs. 7.50 ps. per sq.ft. per month, would not entitle the petitioner-society to claim the non-occupancy charges from its members contrary to the said directions issued by the competent authorities. Viewed from this angle, therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioners that there was a concluded contract in relation to the quantum of the amount payable to the petitioner-society by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as the non-occupancy charges. Even if there is such a contract, the same being contrary to law and contrary to the public policy, the same is not enforceable in law. Hence no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the authorities below, restricting the claim from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as the non-occupancy charges. Even if there is such a contract, the same being contrary to law and contrary to the public policy, the same is not enforceable in law. Hence no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the authorities below, restricting the claim from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as regards the non-occupancy charges to the extent of amount specified in the order dated 10-8-1998 and confirmed by the revisional authority. 5. In the result, therefore, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. The rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----