After years of internal conflict inside a small Mumbai housing society, the Supreme Court has stepped in to settle a bitter membership dispute linked to a prime Peddar Road flat. The court ruled that legal heirs of a long-time tenant could not be denied society membership merely because their payment was delayed, especially when earlier resolutions supported their entry.
The judgment brings clarity to how cooperative societies should deal with old tenancy claims and delayed contributions.
Background of the Case
The dispute centred on Flat No. 7 in Malboro House, a seven-flat cooperative housing society located on Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai.
The flat was originally occupied by Narendra Patel as a tenant under Kamani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. When the company went into liquidation in the 1990s, all tenants decided to collectively acquire the building by forming a cooperative society. Six tenants paid their share. Patel, however, did not immediately deposit his contribution of ₹5 lakh.
Over time, Patel passed away. His legal heirs, Shashin Patel and Bhavini Patel, later approached the society to be admitted as members and offered to pay the amount with interest. By then, divisions within the society had deepened.
Read also:- MP High Court Upholds DNA Test Order in Divorce Case, Says It’s Necessary to Examine Adultery Allegations
Trouble Inside the Society
By 2025, the society was facing administrative chaos. Elections were not held, and the managing committee overstayed its term. A complaint led the Deputy Registrar to appoint an Authorised Officer to run the society.
When the Patels applied for membership, the officer declined to decide, saying he lacked authority. This triggered a series of appeals before cooperative authorities, ultimately resulting in an order directing the society to admit the Patels as joint members.
However, three existing members challenged this before the Bombay High Court, which set aside the membership and ordered a fresh vote in a special general body meeting.
What Reached the Supreme Court
The Patels, along with a company that later purchased the flat from them, approached the Supreme Court of India, arguing that:
- A 2005 Annual General Meeting had already resolved to admit Narendra Patel as a member
- The resolution was never cancelled
- Denying membership after decades of peaceful occupation created an unfair situation
They also pointed out that the society itself had later approved both their membership and the flat’s transfer to the purchaser.
Court’s Observations
The bench closely examined the society’s records and noted that the 2005 resolution offering membership was undisputed.
“The offer to admit the original occupier was never withdrawn,” the court observed, adding that continued occupation without membership would only “perpetuate friction” within the society.
The judges also took note that the society’s general body, in a 2025 meeting, had reaffirmed the earlier resolution and accepted both the Patels’ membership and the subsequent transfer of the flat.
On the High Court’s interference, the bench remarked that once statutory remedies under the cooperative law were followed, the registrar’s decision could not be brushed aside so easily.
Final Decision
Setting aside key portions of the Bombay High Court’s order, the Supreme Court restored the Patels’ membership in the society and upheld the validity of the flat’s transfer to the purchasing company.
At the same time, the court balanced equities by leaving it open for the society’s members to seek additional interest for the delayed payment, if they choose to approach the appropriate authority.
“The only equitable solution,” the bench said, “is to recognise the entitlement of the occupants to membership.”
With this, the long-running dispute reached a legal closure - without costs.
Case Title: Shashin Patel & Anr. vs Uday Dalal & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 36106 of 2025
Decision Date: 5 February 2026
