Justice Amit Borkar, in a hard-hitting judgment delivered on April 18, 2026, dismantled the high-handed tactics of the Malad Cooperative Housing Society and sent a clear warning to all cooperative societies across the state.

“A cooperative housing society is not a forum for adjudicating title disputes, succession claims, partition matters or proprietary entitlements between legal heirs,” the court thundered. “It is not vested with powers akin to a civil court. The society’s function is strictly confined to management of its affairs, regulation of membership, maintenance of internal records, and recognition of persons only for administration and collection of dues.”

The message is brutally direct: Collect the maintenance cheques. Update the share certificates. Stay in your administrative lane. Stop acting like judges, blocking heirs, demanding endless NOCs, or playing god with people’s homes.

The case arose when the Malad society refused membership to Radheshyam Dhanuka in Flat No. 4/31, citing “multiple legal heirs” and vague title issues — even though he had lived there for decades, paid dues (which the society happily accepted), and the family’s earlier title suit against him had been unconditionally withdrawn.

The High Court shredded this approach. It ruled that societies need only form a prima facie opinion on who appears to be the legal heir — not conduct trials on ownership. Recognition as a member does not decide or extinguish actual title. Real ownership fights belong exclusively in civil courts.

This verdict is a massive setback for the countless societies that routinely behave like feudal kingdoms — delaying transfers for years, harassing successors, rejecting applications on flimsy “dispute” grounds, and treating flat owners like commoners begging for favours.

Justice Borkar made it crystal clear: Mere existence of multiple heirs is not an excuse to sit on applications indefinitely. Societies cannot convert themselves into tribunals of title. Their job is practical administration — nothing more.

For flat owners and legal heirs who have suffered years of society tyranny, this judgment is a powerful shield. Managing committees that continue to overstep now risk being dragged to court and having their decisions overturned with strong observations.

The Bombay High Court has spoken loud and clear: Housing societies, know your place. Handle dues and records. Do not decide the fate of flat owners. You simply don’t have that right. In literal terms, the Court said to society That’s way above your pay grade.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Limits Registrar’s Role – Complex Housing Society Disputes Must Go to Proper Forums

The post Bombay HC Shows Housing Societies Its Place: Handle Dues and Records, Do Not Decide The Fate of Flat Owners appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Amit Borkar, in his order dated February 2, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 1293 of 2026 (Amanul Ekramul Ansari vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), upheld the Revisional Authority’s decision to set aside an earlier appellate order granting membership. The court held that a basement and parking space do not qualify as a “flat” under Section 154B(1)(13) of the MCS Act, and therefore cannot form the basis for membership in a cooperative housing society.

Background of the Case The petitioner, Amanul Ekramul Ansari, claimed ownership of a basement and parking area through a registered conveyance deed dated December 12, 2019. On August 17, 2020, he applied for membership in Respondent No. 4, a cooperative housing society. When the society failed to communicate a decision within the statutory period, he invoked the appellate remedy under Section 22(2) of the MCS Act on the same day.

The Appellate Authority, by order dated July 12, 2021, directed the society to grant membership based on the material placed before it. Aggrieved, the society filed Revision Application No. 575 of 2023 before the State Government (Revisional Authority), which allowed the revision and set aside the appellate order.

The Revisional Authority held that the purchased area — a basement and parking space — did not answer the description of a “flat” under Section 154B(1)(13) of the MCS Act, rendering the membership claim unsustainable.

Petitioner’s Arguments Represented by Advocate Anish Karande and team, the petitioner argued that the scope of inquiry under Section 22(2) is limited and does not permit adjudication on the validity of title or legality of a registered instrument. He further contended that the society’s silence triggered deemed membership, relying on an earlier Bombay High Court decision in Videocon Appliances Ltd. vs. Maker Chambers V Premises Coop. Socy. Ltd. (2005).

Court’s Reasoning Justice Borkar rejected these contentions, relying heavily on the recent Bombay High Court judgment in Uday Dalal & Ors. vs. Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors. (WP No. 15089 of 2025, decided December 5, 2025). Key observations include:

• Membership in a cooperative housing society (under Chapter XIII-B of the MCS Act) is conditioned upon ownership or lawful entitlement to a “flat” as defined in Section 154B(1)(13) — a self-contained unit corresponding to the sanctioned building plan.
• The statutory scheme distinguishes between mere possession and lawful entitlement referable to a recognised unit in the approved layout.
• Deemed membership (arising from the society’s failure to reject within time) operates only within statutory eligibility boundaries. It cannot enlarge membership rights beyond what the Act permits.
• The architect’s certificate annexed to the conveyance deed showed the basement and parking spaces were situated outside the Floor Space Index (FSI) utilised for construction. FSI reflects the permissible built-up area sanctioned by the planning authority.
• Units outside FSI are typically treated as common areas or appurtenant facilities (not independent flats). A conveyance deed, “however carefully drafted,” cannot override the sanctioned plan or convert a common area into a separate flat for membership purposes.

The court concluded that the Revisional Authority committed no jurisdictional error or perversity. Its finding was based on the statutory definition, sanctioned plan, and material on record. No grounds existed for interference under writ jurisdiction.

Outcome The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The ruling reaffirms that membership rights in Maharashtra cooperative housing societies are strictly linked to ownership of a sanctioned “flat” — not basements, parking spaces, or other common-area components.

This decision serves as a strong precedent for societies to reject membership claims based on non-qualifying units and warns buyers against relying solely on registered deeds for areas not recognised as independent flats in building plans.

Also Read: Open Parking Space Cannot be Sold and this is Final

The post Bombay High Court Rules Basement & Parking Purchase Does Not Confer Cooperative Housing Society Membership appeared first on Square Feat India.

The division bench of Justice Amit Borkar allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a deemed membership conferred on a flat buyer in an SRA redevelopment project, and restored the buyer’s membership rights, underlining that possession and statutory rights under MOFA take precedence over payment disputes.

Background of the Dispute

The case, Writ Petition No. 13583 of 2025, involved a flat purchaser, Digant Parekh, who executed a registered Agreement for Sale dated 16 September 2013 with developers Akruti Kailash Construction and Wellgroomed Venture for a flat in Hubtown Viva, Jogeshwari (East). The agreement was registered in the prescribed Form No. 5 under MOFA, which provides enhanced protections to flat buyers.

Despite the existence of this agreement, and after the purchaser applied for membership in the cooperative housing society formed for the project, the society did not grant membership. The purchaser then sought deemed membership under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and the Assistant Registrar granted it on 18 August 2022.

However, the developers challenged this decision before the Divisional Joint Registrar, who in an order dated 25 November 2024 set aside the deemed membership, primarily on the ground that a civil suit (Suit No. 2225 of 2016) filed by the developers to enforce the Agreement for Sale was still pending in the City Civil Court, and that payment was allegedly incomplete.

High Court Trial of Key Legal Issues

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, raising several critical issues:

• Whether a registered MOFA buyer has “taken” the flat for society membership purposes even if full payment remains due.
• Whether a pending civil suit on validity and enforcement of the agreement bars membership.
• Whether the appellate authority had jurisdiction to set aside the deemed membership order in light of a government notification reforming appellate powers.

Court’s Historic Ruling

After reviewing the law and statutory purpose of MOFA, the High Court made several important findings:

1. Validity and Effect of the MOFA Agreement

The court observed that a registered MOFA agreement in Form No. 5 confers a special legal position on a buyer. The statute treats a purchaser under such an agreement as someone who has “taken” the flat, since registration itself contains detailed mandatory disclosures about the project, title, possession, price, and responsibilities of the promoter.

Accordingly, the court found that such purchasers are entitled to exercise rights available to flat buyers — including society membership — even if some payment remains outstanding. This is because:

• MOFA protects purchasers from unfair practices of builders.
• A purchaser’s legal status does not depend on full payment alone.
• Any unpaid amount places the developer in the position of an “unpaid seller”, whose remedies are limited to recovery, not denial of membership.

“When a purchaser signs a registered agreement under Section 4 of MOFA, the law gives enforceable rights, including membership rights in the co-operative society,” the judgment stated.

2. Pending Civil Suit Does Not Bar Membership

The court rejected the argument that the mere pendency of a civil suit to enforce the agreement should prevent the conferral of membership. It held that a civil dispute on title or payment does not automatically block administrative steps such as granting membership, unless a civil court issues a specific injunction.

3. Jurisdictional Error

The court also found that a State Government Notification dated 8 October 2024 had transferred appellate powers for grievances related to SRA housing societies to a newly constituted authority. As such, the Divisional Joint Registrar who set aside the membership order in November 2024 did not have jurisdiction to do so.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that:

• The revisional order dated 25 November 2024 cancelling membership was quashed.
• The original deemed membership order dated 18 August 2022 was restored.
• The civil suit filed by the developers will continue independently and will not affect the society membership of the buyer.
• An application for stay of the judgment was rejected.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment sends a strong message to the real estate sector, especially in redevelopment contexts:

• Society membership cannot be withheld solely on the basis of unpaid dues claimed by builders.
• Flat buyers under valid MOFA agreements have enforceable statutory rights that extend to society membership.
• Developers cannot use payment disputes to delay or block flat purchasers’ participation in the governance and management of their societies.

Legal experts say this interpretation reinforces MOFA’s protective purpose and ensures that housing society membership rights are not made hostage to payment disputes.

Also Read: Tribunal Rules Housing Society Not a Promoter Under RERA

The post Full Payment to Builder Is NOT a Pre-Condition for Society Membership appeared first on Square Feat India.