Godown Independently Approved In Sanctioned Plan Qualifies As A 'Flat' For Housing Society Membership: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that a godown separately sanctioned in the development permission qualifies as a “Flat” under Section 154B-1(13) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and its owner is entitled to membership of a cooperative housing society. The Court observed that the statutory definition of “Flat” includes a godown and that the godown in the present case was independently sanctioned in the development plan.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a petition filed challenging the Divisional Joint Registrar's order directing the Society to admit respondents as members of the petitioner-society in respect of the godown purchased by them. The Society had contended that the godown formed part of Shop No.8 and could not be treated separately for the purpose of membership.
The Society argued that the godown was not independently sanctioned in the sanctioned plan, had no independent access and formed part of Shop No.8. It contended that the godown does not qualify as a 'flat' within the meaning of Section 154B-1(13) of the MCS Act.
The Court noted that under Sections 154B-1(13) and 154B-5, for becoming member of a co-operative housing society, one must own a flat, which is approved in the sanctioned plan and the membership in a cooperative housing society cannot exceed the number of flats. It observed that the term 'Flat' includes even a godown or self contained part of immovable property.
“… Section 154B-1(13) defined the term 'Flat' in a expansive manner and the term 'Flat' now includes even a godown or self contained part of immovable property. Going strictly by definition of the term 'Flat' under Section 154B-1(13) of the MCS Act, godown purchased by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 can be treated as a flat,” the Court remarked.
Next, the Court noted that premises not sanctioned as an independent unit cannot be treated as a “flat” for granting membership.
Examining the original sanctioned plan dated June 25, 1993, the Court found that Shop No.8 was sanctioned on the ground floor while the godown beneath it was separately sanctioned in the basement for storage of non-combustible material. It held that no separate individual staircase is sanctioned from shop No.8 for accessing the godown, and thus, the godown is sanctioned separately from shop No.8.
The Court further noted that the same person having purchased the shop and godown under a common agreement did not mean that the two structures constituted a unified structure. It observed:
“Merely because he purchased both the structures by common agreement, the Society issued common share certificate to Daphalapurkar and he was granted only one membership. This does not mean that there was any restriction for Daphalapurkar from segregating his ownership qua basement godown…”
The Court accordingly upheld the Divisional Joint Registrar's order and held that the Respondents were entitled to membership qua the godown, which qualified as a “Flat” under the MCS Act.
Case Title: Ashwini Heights Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Jyoti Nitin Lunia [Writ Petition No. 2241 of 2024]