The Pune Cooperative Court, in a recent order concerning a housing association in the city, clarified that where buildings are subject to the Apartments Act 1970, maintenance charges apply depending on the size of a dwelling. The order eliminated confusion as to whether maintenance fees should be charged per zone or per unit. Apartment owners who own small apartments received great relief with this order. The Are Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Society Limited (respondent) was a tenant-co-partnership association, and B.D. Punjabi (respondent 2) was a tenant-co-partner in respect of apartment No. 5 in the company`s Ashiana building. Respondent 2, who came into possession of the above-mentioned apartment, placed the appellant as a licensee in December 1970 without the company`s permission for a monthly fee of Rs 325, which was subsequently increased to Rs 450. Respondent 2 had been in arrears since March 1977 with the payment of the corporation`s dues and the appellant, who was the resident, was harassing the members of the corporation. The company filed this claim under Arbitration Case No. ABN 634/754 of 1977, which sought to recover the vacant apartment from the respondent and appellant.
A second request was made for the respondent to pay the company`s contributions. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies referred the dispute concerning the company to a special duty officer under section 91 of the Companies Act 1960, who was then referred to the Cooperative Court after amendment of section 91A of the Companies Act 1960. Each housing association has common areas, and under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act or RERA (well, even before the law came into force), the developer or developer is responsible for providing and maintaining essential services at reasonable maintenance costs to be paid by residents. In one society, the treasurer resigned as treasurer, not being a member of the committee, and then the president and secretary resigned from their positions and joined the committee. Show more. Advice from business consultants In our company there are three buildings, one building has an elevator and two other buildings do not have an elevator. If the elevator is not provided in the building, the housing association can arrange for repair and maintenance of . Show more. In the case of a housing cooperative, the building land is always transferred to the name of the company whose name appears on the 7/12 slip or property card.
If there is an apartment, its land is transferred to the name of each owner of the apartment in proportion to his share. The name of each apartment owner appears on the 7/12 statement,” he said. Meanwhile, the state of Maharashtra argued that its circular protected members of minorities from oppression by the majority. The circular also protected the right to property under section 300A of the Constitution, since a member`s domicile is his or her personal property and society has no right to interfere with his or her use or enjoyment of it. The state further argued that imposing exorbitant non-occupancy fees would run counter to the spirit of the co-operative movement and drive up real estate rents, thereby undermining the rental housing market. Suhas Patwardhan, president of the Pune District Cooperative Housing Societies and Apartment Federation, said: “According to the Housing Act, you have to pay for maintenance based on the percentage of property compared to common areas and per square meter. In housing co-operatives, land and buildings belong to the company, not to individuals. Therefore, most maintenance costs are divided equally regardless of the area. These costs include maintenance, repairs and maintenance costs. The judgment corresponds to the model statutes.â The present case Indrani Wahi v. Registrar of Coop.
Societies (2016), which appeared before the Supreme Court of India, concerned the issue of succession of interests in Apartment No. 4-RB 2/3, Purbachal Housing Estate, Phase-II, Sector-III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata. The complainant, Indrani Wahi, paid maintenance and other costs to the company for the above-mentioned apartment, which was originally owned by her father. Subsequently, the complainant`s brother, Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta, claimed that the complainant was not entitled to the apartment.
