The Gurudev Nityanand Co-operative Housing Society in Mahim was registered in 1977 under the guidance of Rane and other Mumbai Port Trust employees. The society was formed by a conglomerate of 68 persons residing on a plot of land owned by Mahesh and Company.

When the company decided to develop the land, it was agreed that a portion of the 3,728 square feet area would be set aside for a building to house the former occupant. Rane and a few others took the lead in forming the society, and in convincing occupants to vacate the old premises. Rane took 20 months' leave for the purpose. As a token of gratitude, society members decided to exempt Rane from payment of the cost of the flat.

In addition, theyresolved that the society would pay him around Rs 50,000 in appreciation of his social work. As time passed, the rate per square foot area of the plot went up.

The society gave the work order for the building in 1985, when the rate was Rs 350 per square feet area. Then, on October 19, 1986, Rane was expelled from the society. The reason cited for this was non-payment of the price of the flat. The society's new resolution made no mention of the old resolution regarding special exemption given to Rane. As procedure demanded, the society referred the expulsion to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

The deputy registrar approved the expulsion in April 1989. Rane appealed against this order to the Joint Divisional Registrar, but his appeal was dismissed. Rane then moved the High Court.

The HC scrutinised all records of the society and concluded Rane was not a defaulter. The office of the deputy registrar had also erroneously approved of his expulsion.As per the court's ruling, Rane was readmittedas a member of the society. But Rane argued that as a member of the society, he should be allotted a flat in the society's building. At that time, the court had asked him to deposit three lakh rupees with the court. But the society claimed there were no vacant flats in the building.

Therefore, Rane pleaded that justice will be done to him only when the last allotment in the building is cancelled and he is accommodated in that flat.

The court didn't grant this prayer. It recently directed him to take back the three lakh rupees which had been deposited by him nine years ago. The value of the money exceeds Rs six lakh today. Rane agreed to take back this sum. He was also awarded litigation costs of Rs 15,000, and the deputy registrar and joint registrar were asked to pay Rane Rs 750 each.