In a significant ruling impacting cooperative housing societies across Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has upheld the right of a housing society to recover long-pending maintenance dues from occupants, even if the demand relates to earlier years. The Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by two senior citizens who challenged recovery proceedings initiated by their housing society, holding that society dues are a continuing obligation and not barred by limitation.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose between Aspandiar Rashid Irani and another and Pasayadan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Thane.
Read also:- Rajasthan HC Rules RTE Quota Applies at Pre-School Level, Strikes Down State’s Restricted Entry Policy
The petitioners had entered into an unregistered development agreement in 1996 with a builder, under which they received possession of four flats. Although the society was registered in 2005, the petitioners were never formally admitted as members and no registered sale agreement was executed in their favour.
For nearly two decades, no maintenance bills were raised. In March 2023, the society issued a demand notice seeking arrears of maintenance and service charges from 2005 onwards. When payment was not made, recovery proceedings were initiated under Section 154B-29 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
The Deputy Registrar allowed the recovery, and the revisional authority upheld the decision. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Bombay High Court.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Bihar Rule Requiring Pharmacy Diploma for Govt Jobs, Rejects Degree-Only Claims
Arguments by the Petitioners
The petitioners contended that:
- The recovery was barred by limitation as the demand related to dues dating back nearly 18 years.
- They were never members of the society and hence not liable.
- There was no registered sale agreement as required under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA).
- Recovery proceedings could not be initiated without a valid resolution of the society.
- Section 154B-29 could not be applied retrospectively.
Their counsel argued that “the cause of action, if any, arose years ago and cannot be revived after such a long delay.”
Stand of the Housing Society
The society countered by stating that:
- The petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the flats.
- Maintenance dues are recurring in nature and attached to the premises.
- Under the Cooperative Societies Act, recovery proceedings are not subject to the Limitation Act.
- The petitioners had acted as promoters and benefited from the property.
- Society dues are statutory obligations necessary for the survival of the society.
The society argued that non-payment of maintenance affects all members and defeats the cooperative system.
Court’s Observations
Justice Amit Borkar, after examining the statutory framework and case law, made several important observations:
- Society dues are recurring obligations, not one-time claims.
- Non-payment of maintenance is a continuing wrong, giving rise to a fresh cause of action every month.
- Section 154B-29 of the MCS Act provides a special mechanism for recovery, independent of the Limitation Act.
- The law intentionally does not prescribe any limitation period for recovery of society dues.
- Membership or formal registration is not decisive if a person enjoys possession and benefits of the flat.
The Court observed:
“Maintenance charges are not personal debts. They arise from occupation and enjoyment of the premises and continue so long as such enjoyment continues.”
It further held that allowing defaulters to escape liability merely due to passage of time would defeat the very purpose of cooperative housing societies.
Read also:- Gadag Murder Case: Supreme Court Reverses High Court, Orders Release of Accused
Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed all the writ petitions and upheld the recovery proceedings initiated by the society.
It ruled that:
- The recovery certificates issued by the authorities were legal.
- The society was well within its rights to recover long-pending dues.
- No interference was warranted under writ jurisdiction.
- The request for stay of the judgment was also rejected.
Case Title: Aspandiar Rashid Irani & Anr. vs Pasayadan Co-op Housing Society Ltd.
Case No.: Writ Petition Nos. 8044, 8045, 8046 & 8155 of 2025
Decision Date: 16 January 2026
