The ruling, in Deepak Dattaram Chavan v. Nirman Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., is significant for thousands of housing society members who face the blunt instrument of service disconnection after a dispute over maintenance bills, penalties, interest or other alleged dues.

What the member alleged

Deepak Chavan, a 67-year-old retired member and former chief promoter of Nirman Residency CHS in Sawantwadi, approached the Co-operative Court challenging certain society resolutions. During that dispute, he sought interim protection: restoration of water and drainage to his flat, an order restraining obstruction to his possession, and a bar on further disconnection of essential services.

His case was simple but serious: without water and drainage, a flat becomes effectively uninhabitable. He told the appellate court that the disconnection had forced him to vacate the flat and live in rented premises. He also argued that the recovery amount was not the subject matter of his pending dispute, and that the society was trying to use allegedly disputed dues to deny him occupation and enjoyment of his own home.

What the society said

The society’s defence rested on a familiar position: the member was a long-term defaulter. It claimed he had not paid monthly maintenance for 17 to 18 years, and said the outstanding amount, including interest and other charges, had risen to Rs. 8,30,073 as per its October 2026 account abstract.

It argued that water and drainage had been disconnected legally under the society’s bye-laws because of non-payment, and that a member could not claim the benefit of society services while withholding the charges meant to sustain them.

The society also relied on Bombay High Court rulings—including Vilas Gopal Dongare v. Municipal Commissioner, Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Aspandiar Rashid Irani v. Pasayadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.—to support its power to recover dues and act against defaulting members. In the Irani case, the Bombay High Court upheld recovery certificates issued under Section 154B-29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, treating society dues as a continuing obligation.

Why the lower court had refused relief

The Co-operative Court No. 2 at Kolhapur had rejected Chavan’s interim application on 24 June 2026. In effect, it accepted that the society’s claim of arrears was a sufficient basis to deny interim protection, leaving the member without water and drainage while the larger dispute continued.

That order is what the appellate court has now corrected.

The turning point: Rs. 2,26,650 deposited

During the appeal, the appellant filed an interim application. The appellate court, by its order dated 16 October 2026, directed restoration of essential supply subject to deposit of Rs. 2,26,650 — an amount it arrived at after scrutinising the society’s account statement.

Crucially, the court treated this as the undisputed principal maintenance amount. The remaining components of the society’s claim—interest, penalties and other alleged dues—were treated as disputed and not part of the original 2018 dispute.

Chavan deposited the amount on 17 October 2026. The society then restored the water connection and drainage line.

What the judge held

Member-2 of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, A. S. Wanve, held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay with him, and that refusal of interim relief would cause irreparable harm because a flat without water and drainage cannot be lived in.

The court’s central reasoning was that the society had not obtained a recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, nor an adjudicated award or dispute decision under Section 91, for the disputed balance. Section 101 provides a statutory mechanism for recovery of certain society dues as arrears of land revenue, and a certificate issued under it carries statutory finality for the arrears specified.

That distinction mattered. The court held that the society could not rely on an unadjudicated, contested claim to cut off basic amenities—especially when the member had already deposited the undisputed principal and undertaken to pay future maintenance regularly.

The appellate court also distinguished the precedents cited by the society. In those matters, recovery certificates had already been issued against the members; here, no such certificate or adjudication existed.

The operative protection

The appellate court set aside the Co-operative Court’s order and substituted interim relief in the member’s favour:

• The society is restrained from disconnecting water, drainage or electricity to the member’s flat until the main dispute is decided, or until a competent authority or court adjudicates the actual outstanding amount—whichever is earlier.
• The member must pay regular monthly maintenance on time, like other members, from the following month.
• The society remains free to initiate appropriate recovery proceedings for the disputed balance.

This is not a clean chit to the member on the full dues claim. It is a targeted order: prove the dues through the proper legal process; do not punish the member by making his home unliveable.

Why it matters to members

For members, the message is twofold.

First, maintenance is a legal and continuing obligation. Members should not assume that a dispute over interest, penalties or particular charges suspends the entire liability. Courts have repeatedly recognised society dues as recurring obligations, and recovery mechanisms exist for genuine arrears.

Second, a society is not a private fiefdom. It cannot convert a billing disagreement into a punishment that removes water, drainage or electricity from an occupied flat—particularly where the alleged arrears are disputed and no competent authority has yet determined them.

The order does not say societies can never disconnect services. It says they must act within law: establish the dues through the appropriate forum, obtain the necessary order or certificate where required, and avoid high-handed action that leaves a member without basic living conditions.

The larger warning for societies

This judgment is a warning to managing committees that treat disconnection as the first response to a defaulting member. A society may have a strong claim on paper, but if it bypasses adjudication and cuts essential services, it risks judicial intervention, costs, reputational damage and—more importantly—an order restoring services.

For members, the practical lesson is equally clear: keep paying undisputed maintenance, contest disputed items through proper proceedings, preserve bills, correspondence and payment proof, and seek urgent interim relief if a society threatens to make a home uninhabitable.

The case may have begun as a fight over resolutions and arrears. Its broader significance lies in a simple principle: a housing society manages a community; it does not own the member’s right to live with dignity in his own flat.

Also Read: Cooperative Court Can’t Decide Family Property Dispute

The post Society Cuts Water and Drainage Over Maintenance Dues: Court Stops It, Member Wins appeared first on Square Feat India.