India. It is true that when bonafide and genuine disputed questions of fact are involved, the appropriate remedy would be under section 91 of the said Act. However, the question whether there are any such issues involved would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. Prima facie, at this stage, the revisional authority on the basis of examination of the record has found that no such questions are involved and the matter can be decided within the parameters and the powers available under section 101 of the said Act. Prima facie, in my opinion, the factum of the petitioner No.1 being a member in relation to any unit / tenement or garage in the present case can be examined on the basis of documentary evidence which can be produced by the first respondent. Considering the over all circumstances, I do not find that a case for interference is made out in the impugned order. However, at the same time, the impugned order passed by the revisional authority cannot be read to mean that all such contentions which may be available to the petitioner to urge that the remedy under section 101 of the Act is not a appropriate remedy, cannot be said to be closed. Thus, the petitioners would be entitled to raise all such contentions as may be available to them both in law and on facts before the learned Deputy Registrar. Subject to this, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
