In redevelopment projects, it is not uncommon for an existing member to acquire an additional adjoining flat. In your case, one flat is in the husband’s name and the adjoining flat is in the wife’s name. Although the original municipal plan showed a dividing wall, the builder subsequently removed it, resulting in the municipal authority levying property tax as a single unit. On this basis, the member is now demanding that the society charge maintenance for only one flat and refund the excess maintenance collected over the last two years.
This situation needs to be examined strictly from the perspective of cooperative housing society bye-laws and membership obligations.
Separate Ownership and Separate Membership
The additional flat has been purchased in the name of the member’s wife. This makes her an independent member of the society. As a result:
• The husband and wife are two separate members
• Each holds a distinct share certificate
• Each enjoys individual rights and bears individual obligations under the bye-laws
Even if the two flats are internally combined or used as a single residential unit, ownership and membership remain separate in the society’s records.
Irrelevance of Municipal Property Tax for Society Billing
Property tax is levied by the municipal corporation based on its own assessment parameters, including physical configuration and sanctioned plans. The fact that the BMC treats the two flats as one unit for property tax purposes does not bind the society.
A cooperative housing society is governed by the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Model Bye-Laws, not by municipal taxation logic. Therefore, society maintenance cannot be aligned automatically with property tax assessment.
Maintenance Charges as per Bye-Law 67
Bye-Law 67 clearly lays down how different components of society charges are to be recovered from members. Key principles include:
• Service charges, lift expenses, common area electricity, security and administrative expenses are divided equally per flat or per member, as approved by the general body
• Repair and maintenance charges are levied per flat
• Insurance charges are based on the built-up area of each flat
• Water charges depend on the number and size of water inlets
• Parking charges, non-occupancy charges, and interest on delayed payments are levied as per specific bye-law provisions
Since there are two flats and two members, each flat attracts maintenance independently, irrespective of internal alterations.
Internal Alterations Do Not Change Society Liability
Removal of the internal wall by the builder or subsequent merging of flats does not alter:
• Number of flats allotted by the society
• Number of members admitted
• Number of share certificates issued
Unless the society has formally approved amalgamation of flats, amended its records, and restructured shareholding and area calculations, the flats continue to exist as two independent units for maintenance purposes.
Refund Claim Has No Legal Basis
The demand for refund of maintenance charges paid over the last two years is not legally sustainable. The society has billed correctly based on:
• Separate ownership
• Separate membership
• Valid bye-law provisions
Granting such a refund would amount to discriminatory treatment and may expose the managing committee to objections from other members.
Conclusion
As long as the husband and wife remain separate members holding two flats, the society is fully justified in levying maintenance charges for both flats independently, regardless of how the municipal corporation assesses property tax or how the flats are internally used. The society should reject the refund request through a reasoned communication citing Bye-Law 67 and membership principles.
IN the post above there is a mention: A cooperative housing society is governed by the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Model Bye-Laws, not by municipal taxation logic. Therefore, society maintenance cannot be aligned automatically with property tax assessment.
My case had builder amalgamate 2 flats into one where we had only one registration mentioning one flat number only, one electricity meter , one cooking gas line , one door entry. The agreement also had larger area mentioned ( combination of 2 flats ) . The society however has been charging for 2 seprate entities because the municipal plan still shows 2 flats and assessing property tax seprately.
Either of the case should go in favor of the member or is it Society to make the final call in any case discussed in the post and the one that I have.