MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has ruled that an occupant of a flat in a co-operative housing society cannot refuse to pay monthly maintenance charges if they continue to use the building’s common facilities.
Justice Amit Borkar, in a recent order, said that a person residing in a society flat and availing of services such as water supply, security, and cleaning is liable to pay their share of maintenance, even if they are not the original owner.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Giri Chhaya Cooperative Housing Society, which challenged a January 2023 order of the Cooperative Appellate Court. The appellate court had upheld the Cooperative Court’s decision rejecting the society’s claim to recover ₹12.25 lakh in unpaid dues from Prakash Laliwala, the occupant of a flat once owned by his mother, Sushila Laliwala.
According to the society, after Sushila Laliwala’s death in 1992, her legal heir continued to occupy the flat but failed to pay maintenance charges despite repeated requests. The society had sought to recover arrears for six years — from 2009 to 2015 — with interest at 18% per annum.
Both the Cooperative Court and the Appellate Court had dismissed the claim, holding it to be time-barred. However, justice Borkar overturned those findings, observing that the liability to pay maintenance was a continuous and recurring obligation.
“The society has been issuing quarterly bills regularly, which the opponent never disputed. The cause of action for recovery of maintenance charges was continuous so long as the occupant remained in possession and enjoyed common facilities,” the court said.
The judge further observed that Laliwala had been in uninterrupted occupation of the flat since 1992 and had benefitted from all services provided by the society. “A person claiming through a member and residing in the society premises cannot evade payment of his proportionate share of maintenance,” the court added.
The high court directed Laliwala to pay the outstanding ₹12.25 lakh along with 9% interest from the respective dates of default. It also clarified that the society was entitled to continue recovering regular maintenance charges in accordance with its bye-laws.