Case note based on the judgment in Sachin Malpani and Ors. vs. Nilam Patil and Ors., Writ Petition No. 9179 of 2022, decided on August 4, 2025, by the Bombay High Court:
Case Note
Case Title:
Sachin Malpani and Ors. v. Nilam Patil and Ors.
Court:
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Coram:
Justice Milind N. Jadhav
Date of Judgment:
August 4, 2025
Citation:
Writ Petition No. 9179 of 2022
Facts:
- The dispute relates to Treasure Park, a registered condominium under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970, comprising 11 buildings and 356 apartments.
- A Deed of Declaration dated 29.07.2011 and a Supplementary Deed dated 31.05.2017 governed the rights of apartment owners.
- The General Body of the condominium decided to levy equal maintenance charges on all apartment owners regardless of apartment size, with sinking fund contributions based on area.
- Respondents 1 to 5 (owners of smaller apartments) complained to the Deputy Registrar, alleging the maintenance policy violated Section 10 of the Apartment Act.
- The Deputy Registrar, by order dated 08.07.2021, directed that maintenance charges be levied proportionately to the undivided share of each apartment.
- The petitioners (owners of larger flats) challenged this before the Co-operative Court, which upheld the Deputy Registrar’s order on 13.05.2022.
- The petitioners then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues:
- Whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction under Section 16A of the Apartment Act.
- Whether levying equal maintenance on all apartment owners irrespective of area violated Section 10 of the Apartment Act.
- Whether the Deed of Declaration supported proportionate maintenance.
Arguments:
Petitioners:
- The Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction, as powers under Section 16A were not expressly delegated.
- Common amenities are equally enjoyed by all; thus, larger flats should not pay more.
- The practice of equal maintenance was based on valid General Body Resolutions.
- Relied on Venus Co-operative Housing Society vs. Dr. JY Detwani and principles of non-delegation of powers.
Respondents:
- Cited State Government notifications delegating powers to the Deputy Registrar under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
- Pointed to Clauses 7 and 9(xviii) of the Deed of Declaration requiring sharing of expenses proportionate to apartment size.
- Emphasized Section 10 of the Apartment Act which mandates maintenance cost sharing based on undivided interest in common areas.
Judgment:
- The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar by interpreting delegation notifications under the MCS Act.
- Found that the Deed of Declaration clearly provided for proportionate maintenance.
- Held that Section 10 of the Apartment Act mandates common expenses to be charged based on the percentage of undivided interest, which is linked to apartment size.
- Rejected the petitioner’s argument that larger flats do not derive proportionate benefits.
- Noted that the general body resolution cannot override statutory provisions.
- Upheld the Co-operative Court’s reasoning as cogent and consistent with the law.
Held:
- The Deputy Registrar had valid jurisdiction under delegated authority.
- The levy of equal maintenance charges was contrary to Section 10 of the Apartment Act.
- Maintenance must be levied in proportion to the undivided interest in the common areas, as reflected in the Deed of Declaration.
Outcome:
Writ Petition Dismissed.
Orders dated 08.07.2021 (Deputy Registrar) and 13.05.2022 (Co-operative Court) were upheld.
PDF copy of the judgement of the Treasure Park case is available.