-: 1 :- wp-10188/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10188 OF 2010 Dr. Nilima A. Lokhande. ..Petitioner. Versus Jagruti Sahakari Niwas Mandal & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 10189 OF 2010 Mrs. Suman Govind Ingale. ..Petitioner. Versus Jagruti Sahakari Niwas Mandal & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Dharmendra Joshi for the petitioners. Mr. N. N. Bhadrashete for R-1. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for R-2 & 3. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 30, 2011. P. C. : 1. The petitions arise from the proceedings under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Respondent no. 1 initiated the said proceedings against the petitioners for arrears of maintenance. Certificate was issued by the Dy. Registrar which is confirmed by respondent no.3-Joint Registrar in a revision filed by the petitioners. 2. The case of the petitioners is that 3 flats situated in respondent no.1-society are converted into Nursing Home. Initially respondent no.1 was collecting maintenance charges at the rate of srp -: 2 :- wp-10188/10 Rs.98/- per flat per month. This amount of maintenance per flat per month was increased to Rs.300/- and it was further increased to Rs.1,000/-. It was subsequently reduced to Rs.784/- + 98/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have filed Dispute in Co-operative Court challenging the resolution passed by respondent no.1 Society increasing the maintenance amount to Rs.784/- + 98/- per flat per month. 3. There is no dispute that if the maintenance is calculated at the rate of Rs.784 + 98 per flat per month then the petitioners are in arrears of maintenance and for that amount recovery certificate is already issued. The petitioners’ contention that since Dispute is pending in Co-operative Court, the Society cannot be allowed to charge the maintenance at higher rate, cannot be entertained. In my view, approach adopted by respondent nos. 2 & 3 is correct. In case the petitioners succeed in their Dispute before the Co- operative Court, then Society is bound to repay or adjust the amount of maintenance. In the circumstances, no interference is called for. Writ petitions are rejected. 4. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage requested for expediting the hearing of Dispute No. 280 of 2007 pending in the Co-operative Court No.II, Mumbai. Looking into the controversy and in the interest of justice, the trial Court is directed -: 3 :- wp-10188/10 to expedite the hearing of the said Dispute. All the contentions which are subject matter of the Dispute are specifically kept open. (RANJIT MORE, J.)