LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

SRIBHASHYAM MURALIDHAR (Advocate)     13 August 2020

With regard to maintenance of flats in apartment

Does anyone have a Judgement rendered by Bombay High Court of referred below?

Venus Cooperative Housing Society Vs.J.Y.Detwani, passed in W.P.No.1948 of 1999, Dated:30-7-2002, 

Please send copy of the said Judgement to me.

 

 



Learning

 4 Replies

Isaac Gabriel (Advocate)     13 August 2020

You can browse and get it.

G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.)     14 August 2020

Search in google with such case number and you can find any judgment and can download them.

P. Venu (Advocate)     15 August 2020

Yes, it is very difficult to access the Judgement, not even on the Website of the Bombay High Court. It is seen that the Judgment has been reported at 2004(5) Mh.L.J. 197 = 2003(3) All. M.R. 570.

However the ratio laid down by the Judgement has been succinctly summarized the Bombay HC at para 6 & 7 of its Judgment in Sunanda Janardan Rangnekar vs Rahul Apartment No. 11 ... on 10 August, 2005 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/949456/):

"6. In case of Venus Co-operative Housing Society the flats of different sizes, 284 small flats with two bedrooms and 39 large flats with four bedrooms. The society passed a resolution levying the different maintenance charges as per the area of the flats and issued a circular to that effect to members. Disputants who were the holders of the larger flats challenged the circular as also the resolution by filing a dispute under Section 91 of the Act before a co-operative Court. The co-operative Court declared the resolution of the society to be illegal and not binding on the disputants. The decision of the co-operative Court was confirmed by the appellate tribunal. The order was impugned by the society by way of a Writ Petition. This Court held that the resolution of the society levying differential charges on the basis of the area of the flats was arbitrary, unreasonable, without any rational and without any source of power. It held that services of the society were enjoyed by all the members equally and there was no reason for the society to make the large flat holders pay more on the basis of the area of the flats. It held that though the supremacy of the general body cannot be doubted, even the supreme general body had to pass resolutions considering all facts and circumstances of the matter. The general body cannot pass arbitrary and unreasonable resolutions merely because it is supreme and it has a large majority in favour of any issue on the agenda.

7. In the present case the society is recovering differential amounts by way of a property tax on the basis of the area of the flats at the rate of 30.81 per sq. ft. per annum of the area. That has rightly not been challenged by the petitioner, as the property tax payable to Municipal authority would obviously vary according to the area of a flat. However, so far as the charges for the society services or maintenance are concerned, no material was adduced before the Asstt. Registrar to show that any additional services were provided to the petitioner or any additional maintainence was incurred by the Society on account of petitioner being a holder of commercial premises. In the affidavit in reply filed in this Court also, it is not even be alleged that any additional services are provided to the petitioner by reason of her being the holder of commercial premises. In my view, the society was not entitled to levy society charges/maintenance charges for commercial premises at twice the rate that of a residential premises. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by this Court in Venus Cooperative Housing Society v. J.Y. Detwani (supra) in this respect."

1 Like

SRIBHASHYAM MURALIDHAR (Advocate)     15 August 2020

Thank Sir, for your reply. I too searched for the said judgement, but could not find it anywhere.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register