A 14-year ceiling leak in a Kalyan co-operative housing society has produced a blunt message from the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court: if seepage is coming from your flat into the flat below, you cannot refuse the neighbour’s repairmen entry. Privacy, family inconvenience and past damage claims are not enough to stop a supervised repair.

The order, delivered on 4 September 2026 by Member-1 Dr. Srishty Neelkanth in Appeal from Order No. 40 of 2026, upholds a March 2026 interim direction of the Co-operative Court, Thane. Workers appointed by the lower-floor owners must be allowed into the upper flat with tools and materials. The society must supervise the work.

The ruling does not decide who finally pays or whether earlier drilling damaged the slab. It only settles the immediate question that stalls most such disputes: can the upper occupant simply say no?

Two flats, one slab, 14 years of water

The building is Madhav Sankalp KP Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. at Khadakpada, Kalyan (West).

Mangla Vithal Bari and Jitendra Vithal Bari live in Flat C-1/904. Directly above them, in C-1/1004, live Manish Jairam Talreja and Maya Jairam Talreja.

Leakage in the Baris’ common toilet and master bedroom began in July 2012, when the upper flat still belonged to a previous owner. The Baris say civil work — changing floor tiles — started the seepage. They approached the society. Little happened.

The Talrejas moved in around September 2014. By 2015 the leak had worsened. In May 2016 a repair costing ₹4,500 was done; the Baris paid. In 2018 another contractor job costing ₹36,750 was done; again the Baris paid. That year the annual general meeting resolved that future leakage-repair expenses would be shared equally by both flats.

The water did not stop. The Baris filed Dispute No. CCT 14/2025 before the Co-operative Court, Thane, and sought urgent interim access so their workers could enter the upper flat and stop the source.

What the trial court ordered

On 20 March 2026 the trial judge partly allowed the interim application (Exhibit 5). The upper-flat owners were directed to permit entry of workers appointed by the Baris, with necessary materials and tools, to carry out leakage repair. The society was ordered to supervise.

That limited order is what the Talrejas challenged.

Why the upper flat appealed

Their case, in short:

• Earlier repair work had already dismantled flooring and tiles inside 1004. They claimed roughly ₹1.85 lakh spent on refilling drilled holes and replacing tiles.
• They alleged the Baris had carried out illegal drilling into the common RCC slab without permission.
• Unrestricted access would hit privacy and peaceful occupation. Elderly family members and a minor child live in the flat.
• Structural repairs and certain leakages, they said, are the society’s job under Model Bye-laws 159(X) and 159(XIV).
• An independent structural auditor or architect appointed by the society should first examine the premises.

They asked that the March order be set aside.

The Baris answered that they have lived with seepage for more than a decade, that they cannot occupy their own home freely, and that further delay risks the building’s structural stability. They said they were ready to bear the cost of the present repair. The society told the appellate court it was trying to mediate.

The engineer the appellants themselves suggested

During arguments the court tried an amicable route. Because the Talrejas did not trust the society, an engineer was to be chosen from names they suggested. The society appointed that engineer. He visited both flats. His sealed report was opened in court.

The report accepted that there is leakage in the lower flat. It was silent on the exact source. That silence did not help the appellants. The court still treated the long history, the photographs and the earlier paid repairs as enough for a prima facie finding that water is coming from above.

The Talrejas then repeated that they would not allow work inside their home.

Bye-laws, AGM resolution, and who pays

The court restated a basic rule most society members miss. Under the model bye-laws, repairs other than those listed in Bye-law 159(a) are to be carried out by members at their own cost. Structural work of the building is a society responsibility; internal leakage originating in one flat and damaging the flat below is not automatically dumped only on the managing committee.

A 2018 AGM resolution said both flats would share leakage-repair expenses equally. That resolution binds both sides. The Baris, however, told both courts they would pay the entire bill this time. The appellate court noted that concession.

Cost-sharing and any claim for past tile damage remain issues for the main dispute. They were not enough to block access.

The three tests the court applied

Interim relief in such matters turns on three familiar questions. The court answered all three in the Baris’ favour:

1. Prima facie case — yes. Leakage in 904 originating from 1004 is made out on the record.
2. Balance of convenience — yes. The lower occupants cannot live normally; the upper occupants face temporary, supervised entry.
3. Irreparable injury — yes. Continued seepage damages property and can affect structural stability of the building.

The March 2026 order was held legal and correct. No interference was required. The appeal was dismissed. Parties were left to bear their own costs.

What the order does — and does not — do

It does not decide final liability. It does not award damages. It does not hold that the society is free of all duty. It does not authorise demolition or unsupervised drilling.

It does this: workers chosen by the lower-flat owners may enter the upper flat with tools and materials to carry out leakage repair and waterproofing, and the society must stand there and supervise.

Privacy is acknowledged. It does not defeat the neighbour’s right to stop water entering their home from above.

Why this matters beyond one Kalyan building

Inter-floor leakage is one of the most common fights inside Maharashtra co-operative housing societies. Typical pattern: lower flat complains for years; society issues notices; upper flat cites privacy, family, previous botched repairs or “the society should do it”; work never starts.

This order tells managing committees and members that once a prima facie case of seepage from the upper flat is shown, courts will not treat the upper occupant’s door as a veto. Supervised, time-bound access can be forced. An AGM resolution on cost-sharing helps. Willingness of the lower owner to pay the current bill helps more.

Societies that stay “neutral” while a slab leaks for a decade are expected to facilitate, not watch.

The main dispute in CCT 14/2025 will still decide money, alleged illegal drilling, and any longer-term waterproofing plan. Until then, the legal position on the landing is simple: if the leak is coming from your flat, you cannot stop the person downstairs from sending repairmen in.

Also Read: Maharashtra Forms High-Level Committee to Amend Cooperative Societies Act, 1960

The post If Leak Is From Your Flat, You Can’t Stop Neighbour From Sending Repairmen In: Court appeared first on Square Feat India.

The dispute, CCT 132/2016 (CNR MHCO04-000148-2016), was filed on 5 December 2016 by Om Shree Krishna Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Buildings F-10 to F-17, Plot 14, Sector 22, Koparkhairane. It was decided on 20 August 2026 by Judge Smt. B. P. Jadhav — after 9 years, 8 months and 15 days.

Society’s claim: years of unpaid maintenance

The society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, said member S. R. Bhandiwad, holder of Flat F-17/1:2, had defaulted on monthly maintenance.

It issued a first demand notice on 6 June 2015 for ₹77,040. Further notices followed on 12 July 2015 (₹79,503), 9 August 2015 (₹81,997), 20 September 2015 (₹1,18,085), 26 November 2015 (₹1,36,658) and 27 May 2016 (₹1,63,602). The society said the notices were served and acknowledged, but payment was not made.

Relying on bye-law 67, the society argued that common services, building upkeep and shared facilities are paid for from members’ maintenance. A member who enjoys those facilities cannot refuse to contribute. After a resolution dated 24 October 2015, the secretary was authorised to file the recovery dispute. The amount sued for was ₹1,70,900 plus interest at 21% per annum till realisation.

Member’s defence: parking fee and a longer list

Bhandiwad appeared and filed a written statement. He admitted membership and ownership of the flat. He did not accept the figure of ₹1,70,900 as correctly stated. He said he had not paid because of “many illegal activities” by the committee.

The allegations included:

• Using NMMC drinking water for additional FSI construction without NMMC permission
• Laying AC-sheet roofing on terraces of each building without NMMC permission
• Forgery and fraud in awarding work and paying the contractor
• Carrying out extra FSI work beyond plans approved by NMMC and CIDCO for buildings F-10 to F-16
• Repeated, unnecessary repairs and re-plastering of the overhead water tank “just making for financial outcome”
• Collecting parking charges in a high amount
• Issuing rental NOCs without police verification of tenants

He said these acts made him “conscious” about paying maintenance.

High parking charges sat on that list as one comparatively small, everyday grievance next to charges of unauthorised construction, misuse of water and alleged forgery. The court still had to decide whether any of this, proved or unproved, cancelled the duty to pay.

No evidence from the member

The society examined two secretaries — Sanjay Bhujbal and later Narayan Tukaram Jarange — and produced demand notices, bills, a statement of outstanding dues, the 24 October 2015 resolution, an authority letter and a month-wise ledger.

The member led no evidence. On 12 June 2026 the court passed a “no evidence” order against him. His allegations therefore remained pleadings only.

What the court held

Judge Jadhav treated the two main issues together: whether the society proved liability for ₹1,70,900 with 21% interest, and whether it was entitled to recovery.

The court recorded as admitted that the society is a registered co-operative housing society and that the opponent is a member. The dispute was for recovery of maintenance. On the record, the member had remained in continuous default despite repeated notices.

The personal ledger at Exhibit 29 showed ₹1,86,060 outstanding as of November 2016. The society had claimed only ₹1,70,900. That claimed figure was allowed.

Because the member filed no evidence, the society’s oral and documentary case went unchallenged.

On interest, the court noted that 21% had already been loaded into the ₹1,70,900 figure. Further interest at 21% on that amount was therefore refused. The dispute was only partly allowed on that limited point.

The order

1. The dispute is partly allowed.
2. The opponent shall pay the society ₹1,70,900 towards maintenance.
3. Award to be drawn accordingly.

No extra 21% interest was granted on top of the decreed sum.

What the ruling means for members and committees

The judgment does not decide whether the parking fee was high, whether extra FSI was unauthorised, or whether contractor payments were irregular. Those issues were never proved.

It decides a narrower, familiar point in co-operative housing law: maintenance is a member’s obligation under the Act, the rules and the bye-laws. A member who believes the committee is overcharging parking, wasting money on tank repairs, or building beyond approved plans has other remedies — inspection of accounts, a complaint to the Registrar, a separate dispute, or challenge to a specific resolution. Withholding the entire maintenance bill is not that remedy.

Societies still have to prove the quantum. Here they did so through notices, bills and the ledger, and they claimed less than the ledger total. Members who want a court to look at alleged mismanagement must put that case on oath and on documents. A written statement alone is not enough.

The nine-year pendency also shows how slowly a straightforward dues recovery can move once it enters the co-operative court system — and how costly delay becomes when interest is already built into the claim and further interest is declined.

Also Read: Bought a Flat in Bank Auction? You Must Clear Past Society Dues to Become a Member

The post Cited High Parking Fee to Stop Maintenance, Koparkhairane Member Ordered to Pay ₹1.70 Lakh appeared first on Square Feat India.

The dispute revolves around the first-floor auditorium and hall complex (admeasuring approx. 10,000 sq.ft.) held by Mahatma Phule Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (a member of the housing society). The Credit Society had given the premises on leave and licence to M/s. Alta Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Derma Health And Cosmetology Hospital Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. for running a 14-bed nursing home with pharmacy.

The housing society approached the Co-operative Court, Thane (Dispute No. CCT/215/2024) alleging breach of the original 1981 CIDCO lease agreement (which permitted commercial use only on the ground floor), violation of society bye-laws (No. 43 & 75(e) regarding subletting and change of user), and potential nuisance to residents due to increased traffic, parking pressure, and health risks.

The society sought an interim injunction to stop all structural changes and commercial activity. The Trial Court, vide order dated 15th October 2025, rejected the interim relief application (Exh.5) but clarified that all construction would remain subject to the final outcome of the dispute.

Aggrieved by the order, the housing society filed Appeal No. 81 of 2025 before the State Co-operative Appellate Court. President Sau. S.S. Sapatnekar delivered the judgment on 2nd May 2026, upholding the Trial Court’s order and dismissing the appeal.

Key Observations of the Appellate Court:

• The Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR) for Maharashtra (updated January 2025) and Government guidelines dated 08/06/2023 explicitly permit nursing homes with up to 20 beds in residential zones, subject to conditions such as separate access/staircase.
• Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) had granted valid permission and NOC dated 29/04/2024 for internal changes.
• The 1981 CIDCO lease conditions are overridden by the current UDCPR regulations.
• The Credit Society had intimated the housing society about the leave & licence and was paying non-occupancy charges, satisfying bye-law requirements.
• The housing society failed to challenge the NMMC NOC through the proper channel under the MRTP Act.
• No prima-facie case or balance of convenience was found in favour of the housing society. Granting injunction would cause irreparable loss to the opponents.

The Court noted that the nursing home has a separate entrance and staircase from the main road, minimising disturbance to residents. The main dispute, however, is still pending final adjudication before the Co-operative Court, Thane.

This order highlights the evolving regulatory framework in Maharashtra, where small healthcare facilities are being encouraged even in residential zones, often creating tension with housing societies relying on older lease deeds and bye-laws.

Homebuyers and societies in Navi Mumbai and across Maharashtra may need to review their bye-laws and lease conditions in light of current UDCPR provisions, especially when dealing with change of user proposals backed by municipal permissions.

Also Read: Mumbai Leads India’s Real Estate Market in Q1 2025

The post Co-op Appellate Court Rejects Society Bid to Halt Nursing Home on First Floor in Vashi appeared first on Square Feat India.