WP 6517/10 1 SSK/20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6517 OF 2010 Homyar S. Aibada ....Petitioner Versus Thana Patell Agiary Co-operative Society Limited & Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Umesh Shetty i/b. M/s. Umesh Shetty & Co., Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kanetkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 16th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent and since, short point is involved, the petition is taken up for hearing. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: The Respondent No.1 initiated proceedings against Petitioner under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for recovery of amount of maintenance in respect of Flat No.28 admeasuring 375 sq.ft. situated in building known as “Patell Apartment” at Agiary Lane, WP 6517/10 2 SSK/20 Thane. The Respondent No.2 after hearing both the sides granted certificate against Petitioner and in favour of Respondent No.1. This certificate was challenged by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.4 by filing revision under section 154 of the M.C.S.Act. In the said revision, the Petitioner also filed an application for stay. This application for stay was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that 50% amount of the recoverable dues as per the provisions of section 154(2A) of the said Act is not deposited by the Petitioner from his own account. This order is challenged by way of present petition. 4. The Respondent No.1 is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the M.C.S.Act, 1960. One Jamshed G. Taraporewalla had challenged the registration of Respondent No.1-Society. The challenge is supported by the Petitioner and many other occupants of Patell Apartment at Agiary Lane, Thane. The said Jamshed G. Taraporewalla and others have also formed an Association. However, registration is not still granted. It is the case of the Petitioner that he alongwith other occupants is depositing an amount of maintenance with the said Association. The 50% amount of recoverable dues which is required to be deposited under section 154-2A of the M.C.S.Act is deposited by Demand Draft. The Demand Draft is drawn in the name of Respondent No.1-Society. This amount, however, is not accepted by Respondent No.1-Society on the ground that the Demand Draft was drawn from the account of the said Association. WP 6517/10 3 SSK/20 4. Having considered the rival submissions, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Section 154(2A) reads as follows: “No application for revision shall be entertained against the recovery certificate issued by the Registrar under section 101 unless the applicant deposits with the concerned society, fifty percent amount of the total amount of recoverable dues.” The plain reading of the said sub-section makes it mandatory on the part of revision applicant to deposit 50% amount of the total recoverable dues with the concerned society. The Petitioner has annexed the Demand Draft at page 76. The Demand Draft is drawn in the name of Respondent No.1-Society for an amount of Rs.43,619/- . There is no dispute that this amount comprises of 50% amount of the recoverable dues under the recovery certificate. The only objection on which the Petitioner’s application for stay is opposed is that the Demand Draft was drawn from the account of the said Association. Under section 154(2A) of the M.C.S.Act, the revision applicant, need not disclose the source from which the amount was secured for the purpose of deposit mentioned above. Sub-Section 2A of section 154 does not mandate that the deposit of 50% amount of recoverable dues must be given from the account of the revision applicant. The Respondent No.1-Society is concerned with recovery of its dues and should not bother as to where from the revision applicant brought this money. In these facts and circumstances, the petition is disposed of, by WP 6517/10 4 SSK/20 passing the following order : 1. The impugned order is quashed and set-aside. 2. The Petitioner is at liberty to re-deposit the Demand Draft towards 50% amount of recoverable dues with Respondent No.1-Society within a period of two weeks from today. The Respondent No.1 shall accept the same. It is made clear that the amount deposited by the Petitioner by way of Demand Draft mentioned above, will be treated as an amount paid by the Petitioner individually and not by the said Association. 3. In the event of Petitioner depositing the aforesaid amount within a period of two weeks with the Respondent No.1-Society, the Respondent No.4-Divisional Joint Registrar shall decide the Petitioner’s application for stay afresh on its own merits and after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (R. V. MORE, J.)