This is a legal petition challenging the decision of the Co-operative Court, Mumbai, which quashed the judgment of the Trial Court. The dispute revolves around the eviction of the Respondents from a room reserved by the Petitioner Society for servant quarters. The Trial Court had ruled in favor of the Society, while the Appellate Court reversed the decision on jurisdictional grounds.

1. Introduction and Background

• The petition challenges the judgment of the Co-operative Court, which overturned a previous decision by the Trial Court regarding the eviction of the Respondents from servant quarters.

2. Facts of the Case

• The dispute originated with the Society seeking eviction of the Respondents from Room No.4, initially allocated to a sweeper and subsequently occupied by her family members after her death.

3. Respondents' Defense

• The Respondents argued that the room was allocated by the original landlord before the Society's formation and that they were protected tenants, not occupying the room free of cost.

4. Trial Court Judgment

• The Trial Court ruled in favor of the Society, stating the room was given as part of employment and that the Co-operative Court had jurisdiction over the dispute.

5. Appellate Court Judgment

• The Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's decision, citing a lack of jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (MCS Act), 1960.

6. Arguments by Petitioner's Counsel

• The Petitioner's counsel argued that the dispute involved the management of the Society's property, which falls under the Co-operative Court's jurisdiction.

7. Arguments by Respondents' Counsel

• The Respondents' counsel contended that the case did not involve the Society's management or business but was related to the tenancy, thus falling outside the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court.

8. Legal Analysis

• The document examines Section 91 of the MCS Act, discussing the scope of disputes that can be heard by the Co-operative Court, including disputes touching the management of the Society.

9. Conclusion

• The document ends with a legal analysis of whether the Co-operative Court had jurisdiction to decide the dispute, focusing on the distinction between the management and business of the Society.