The recent judgment in the Vatsala Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. case (A.O. No. 49 of 2025, decided on 12 June 2026) serves as a powerful case study exposing opaque billing practices and arbitrary demands that many societies continue to follow.

The Vatsala Niwas Case: What Happened?

Vatsala Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., located on Linking Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai, was charging maintenance based on the square-foot area of flats. In December 2023, the bill for Unit No. 201 (owned by Mrs. Poonam Soni) showed no arrears. Suddenly, in the bill dated 21 March 2024, a massive ₹15.33 lakh (later ₹17.26 lakh) in arrears appeared for the same unit without any proper explanation or breakup.

Mrs. Soni and her company (owner of Unit 203) repeatedly requested transparent calculations and supporting documents through letters and emails. The society failed to provide satisfactory details. The society claimed the arrears related to Occupation Certificate (OC) regularization and other expenses, but could not justify why only one unit was targeted while the other was not.

Left with no choice, Mrs. Poonam Soni filed a dispute (CC/II/313/2024) before the Co-operative Court No. II, Mumbai, along with an interim application (Exh.5).

Trial Court’s Strong Interim Order (28 April 2025)

The Co-operative Court granted significant relief:

• Restrained the society from recovering the disputed ₹17,26,422/- till final disposal of the dispute.
• Restrained the society from charging maintenance on square-foot basis.
• Directed the society to charge maintenance strictly on per-unit basis as per the Government Order dated 29.04.2000.
• Ordered the society to provide full breakup and accounts of the arrears within 3 months.
• Flat owners to continue paying regular maintenance on per-unit basis.

Society’s Appeal Dismissed (12 June 2026)

The society challenged the order in the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court. After detailed hearings, Dr. Srishty Neelkanth (Member-1) dismissed the appeal entirely.

Key observations by the Appellate Court:

• Charging on sq.ft basis violates the Government Order and established law.
• The society failed to provide any itemized breakup or valid justification for the sudden arrears.
• Many expense documents were filed, but none explained the selective demand on one unit.
• The society did not even file a proper reply to the interim application in the trial court.

The interim relief was upheld in full. This is a clear victory for transparency and fairness in housing societies.

The Legal Backbone: Government Order Dated 29.04.2000

Under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Government of Maharashtra issued a clear directive on 29 April 2000. It cancelled an earlier confusing order and mandated that maintenance/service charges must be charged equally to all flats as per the Model Bye-Laws (Rule 71(A)(7)).

The government noted widespread opposition from members, as larger flat owners were being unfairly burdened for common services that everyone enjoys equally (security, lifts, housekeeping, common electricity, etc.). Societies were directed to follow the equal per-flat system.

Landmark Bombay High Court Ruling: Venus CHSL vs. Dr. J.Y. Detwani (2002/2003)

This judgment is repeatedly cited and forms the foundation of such cases. In Venus Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Dr. J.Y. Detwani, the society passed a resolution to shift from flat-wise to area-wise (sq.ft) maintenance charging.

The Bombay High Court struck down the resolution, declaring it arbitrary, unreasonable, and without legal authority. Key observations:

• Common services provided by the society are enjoyed equally by all members, irrespective of flat size.
• There is “no rational basis” for charging larger flat owners more for the same facilities.
• Even the supremacy of the General Body cannot justify arbitrary or unfair resolutions.

The court upheld the principle that maintenance for shared services must be on a per-flat basis.

Hybrid System in Practice (Current Model Bye-Laws)

While common service charges must be equal per unit, some components can be area-based:

• Per Unit (Equal): Service charges, lift charges, etc.
• Per Sq.Ft.: Sinking Fund, major repairs, property tax (as per BMC), etc.

Societies must maintain clear breakups and cannot apply sq.ft charging to the entire bill.

Message to All Housing Society Members

If your society is charging full maintenance on square-foot basis or raising unexplained demands, you have strong legal grounds to challenge it. Demand transparency, proper accounts, and correction of billing method. This judgment sends a clear message: Societies must follow the law — equal charges for equal common services.

Homebuyers and flat owners should unite and insist on compliance with the 2000 Government Order and Venus precedent.

Also Read: RERA Not for Redevelopment: Tribunal Warns Housing Society Members

The post Big Shock for Mumbai Societies: You Cannot Charge Maintenance on Square Feet Basis! appeared first on Square Feat India.