The finding came in a dispute between Vijay Jindal, a member of Tahnee Heights Co-operative Housing Society, and the society over repairs to Chajjas attached to Flat Nos. 174 and 194 in the building’s D Wing.

The order, pronounced on September 10, 2026, dealt with an application for interim relief. However, while examining whether the society could carry out repairs to the Chajjas, the Court specifically considered their legal status and held that Chajjas falling outside individual flats constitute common areas of the building.

The Court consequently held that the society has the right to maintain and repair such Chajjas.

Flat Owner Claimed Ownership Over Chajjas

Jindal, who was stated to be the lawful owner of two flats, had installed tiles and approximately four-foot-high MS safety grills on the Chajjas in 2006.

According to his case, the grills were installed for safety because the building’s coastal location exposed the windows and fixtures to moisture and saline conditions. He maintained that the installation did not obstruct anyone or affect the structural stability of the building.

The dispute arose after the society undertook structural repair work. During the repairs, the safety grills installed on the Chajjas of the two flats were removed without prior notice to Jindal.

He subsequently objected to the repairs and sought an interim order restraining the society from carrying out demolition, renovation, additions or repairs relating to the Chajja portions attached to his flats.

His fundamental contention was that the Chajjas belonged to him and that the society therefore had no right to carry out repairs on them without his consent.

Society Said Chajjas Are Common Areas

The housing society took a completely different position.

It argued that the Chajjas, along with the external portions of the building, were part of the society’s common areas and that the society was legally entitled to undertake necessary repairs, renovation and maintenance.

The society also relied on the structural repair programme being carried out under the supervision of its appointed consultant, Vora & Associates.

According to the society, the consultant had found that AC grills installed by several members, along with the passage of time, had affected the strength and safety of the Chajjas.

The society also produced material showing seepage and leakage from the Chajjas, which it said had caused damage to the flats situated below.

Court Examines What Constitutes a Common Area

This became the central issue before the Appellate Court.

The Court referred to Model Bye-law 3(xxii), which defines “Common Areas and Facilities” in a co-operative housing society.

The definition includes the land on which the building stands, foundations, columns, girders, beams, supports, main walls and roofs, among several other parts of the building.

It also contains a wider provision covering other parts of the property that are necessary or convenient for the building’s existence, maintenance or safety, or are normally in common use.

The Court specifically relied on this provision while determining the status of the Chajjas.

Court: Chajjas Are Legally Common Areas

The Court’s finding on the Chajja issue is particularly significant.

After examining the definition of common areas, the Court stated that “the Chajjas of a flat is legally considered a common area of a housing society.”

The Court further observed that areas outside the net usable inside floor area of a flat fall outside the individual flat and belong collectively to the co-operative housing society or association of allottees.

It explained that a Chajja is an overhanging structural slab projected from the lintel beam to provide shade and protect windows and doors from rain.

Since the Chajja is outside the actual floor area and is not part of the flat’s carpet area, the Court held that it cannot be treated as the individual flat owner’s property.

The Court then made its position even clearer by stating that “Individual flat owners do not own the exterior phase of the building.”

It concluded that Chajjas falling outside individual flats are common areas of the building and, therefore, the society has the right to maintain and repair them.

Why Being Attached to a Flat Does Not Make the Chajja Part of It

The order draws an important distinction between the flat itself and the exterior structural portion attached to it.

For a flat owner, a Chajja may be immediately outside the windows or physically connected to the flat. But physical attachment does not, according to the reasoning in this order, automatically make the Chajja part of the flat owner’s exclusive premises.

The Court’s reasoning is based on the nature and location of the Chajja.

It noted that the Chajja is an overhanging structural slab outside the actual floor area of the flat and is excluded from the flat’s carpet area.

Therefore, the fact that a particular Chajja serves or is attached to a particular flat does not give that flat owner exclusive ownership over it.

Society Has the Right to Repair the Chajja

Once the Chajjas were treated as common areas, the Court held that the society was entitled to maintain and repair them.

The society had produced an action plan showing that Flat No. 194 required work including repair of a cracked Chajja top, waterproofing to address leakage and assessment and repair of beam damage, if any.

A similar position was recorded regarding Flat No. 174.

The society also produced photographs showing seepage and leakage allegedly originating from the Chajjas and causing damage to the flats below.

The Court noted that, being common areas, the society had the right to carry out the repairs.

Majority Approval Also Considered by Court

The Court also took note of the society’s general-body approvals for the repair programme.

The minutes of the AGM and SGM showed that the repair work had received approval from the members.

The society had 137 members, and the Court noted that, apart from the disputant, no other member was opposing the repair work.

The Court further recorded that the repair budget had been increased from Rs.75 lakh to Rs.2 crore through the society’s general-body process.

Importantly, the Court noted that Jindal had not challenged the AGM or SGM resolutions approving the building repair work.

Court Refuses to Stop Society’s Repair Work

The Appellate Court ultimately refused to grant the requested interim injunction restraining the society from carrying out repairs.

The Court considered the fact that the repair work had already commenced in October 2023, while the dispute was filed in 2025.

It observed that the delay was also relevant while considering the request for interim relief.

Consequently, the Court held that the disputant was not entitled to an ad-interim injunction preventing the society from undertaking the repairs.

What About the Safety Grills Installed by Flat Owners?

The order is also relevant for flat owners who have installed grills or other fixtures on Chajjas.

In this particular case, the owner had installed safety grills in 2006 and argued that similar measures had been undertaken by other members.

However, the society’s consultant had taken the position that AC grills installed by members over time had affected the strength and safety of the Chajjas.

Since the Court treated the Chajjas as common areas, an individual flat owner’s installation on such an exterior structural portion cannot simply be treated as an alteration to his privately owned space.

The order, however, was primarily concerned with the society’s right to undertake repairs and the owner’s request for interim protection. It does not amount to a separate final adjudication of every possible dispute concerning every type of fixture installed on a Chajja.

Important: This Was an Interim-Relief Dispute

There is an important legal qualification to the order.

The State Co-operative Appellate Court was hearing an appeal arising from an interim-relief application. The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the lower court’s order.

At the same time, the Appellate Court expressly directed the Trial Court to decide the pending interim application on its merits without being influenced by the observations contained in the appellate order.

Therefore, the Chajja finding is clearly stated in this order, but the case itself was not a final trial determining every aspect of the parties’ underlying dispute.

What This Means for Flat Owners and Housing Societies

For flat owners, the order carries a straightforward message: a Chajja outside the flat cannot be treated as an individually owned extension of the flat merely because it is attached to or exclusively serves that flat.

For housing societies, the order recognises the society’s authority to maintain and repair Chajjas treated as common areas.

This becomes particularly relevant during structural repairs, waterproofing, leakage rectification and other building maintenance work where access to exterior portions of individual flats may be necessary.

The order also highlights the distinction between the ownership of the flat’s internal premises and the common structural components forming part of the building.

In this case, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court has specifically placed Chajjas outside individual flats within the common areas of the housing society and, on that basis, upheld the society’s right to undertake their repair and maintenance.

Also Read: Redevelopment Guidelines Under Section 79A Not Mandatory, Appellate Court Reiterates

The post Chajjas Do Not Belong to Flat Owners, Are Common Areas: Maharashtra Court appeared first on Square Feat India.