The Unspoken Contract: Bombay High Court Says Using Society Facilities Means Paying Up

Ah, the age-old tussle within cooperative housing societies: who pays what, and more importantly, who can't refuse to pay? For years, this has been a bit of a gray area, leading to countless squabbles and, frankly, quite a bit of head-scratching. But now, it seems, the Bombay High Court has weighed in, rather decisively actually, making it abundantly clear that if you're occupying a flat and, well, using the common facilities, then those society maintenance dues are very much your responsibility. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

It’s a ruling that, in truth, could send ripples through countless housing societies, particularly here in Mumbai, where community living is practically a way of life. The core of the matter? The court stated, rather unequivocally, that an 'occupant' who avails common amenities — think lifts, security, a clean common staircase, maybe even that tiny gym — cannot simply wash their hands of the maintenance bill. And this holds true even if they're not officially, for want of a better word, a 'member' of the cooperative society.

You see, the case that brought this all to light involved one Dr. P.D. Dhakne. He'd purchased a flat in the Suyog Cooperative Housing Society Ltd through an auction. Fair enough, you might think. But here’s where things got a bit tangled. Dr. Dhakne apparently chose not to become a formal member of the society. His argument? Primarily, that the society wasn't even registered back when he first bought the flat. He also tried to claim he was merely a 'lessee,' not quite an 'owner' in the conventional sense, and thus, perhaps, exempt from the usual obligations. It’s a creative legal maneuver, you could say.

Now, this isn't the first time this particular issue has seen the inside of a courtroom. In fact, both the Cooperative Court and the Cooperative Appellate Court had previously sided with Dr. Dhakne. They, perhaps, leaned into the technicalities of membership. But the Bombay High Court, for once, took a broader, more practical view. Justice Sandeep Marne, in his judgment, rather succinctly observed that the word 'occupant' itself implies usage. And, well, if you're using something, you're implicitly agreeing to its upkeep, aren't you?

The court didn't just stop there; it also referenced the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. That piece of legislation, honestly, is quite explicit: anyone occupying a flat within a cooperative housing society is indeed liable to pay the charges. It’s a foundational principle, really, ensuring the smooth functioning and financial health of these communal living arrangements. The High Court, therefore, essentially overturned those earlier decisions, directing Dr. Dhakne to cough up the outstanding maintenance.

What does this mean for everyone else? Well, it's a significant clarity. It means that whether you bought your flat in an auction, inherited it, or just moved in, if you're enjoying the shared benefits of society living, you're expected to contribute. It reinforces the idea that cooperative living is, fundamentally, a shared responsibility. And that, frankly, is probably for the best. After all, nobody wants to live in a crumbling building because some occupants decided to skip their dues, do they?