Housing society not liable for leakage from member's flat, Maharashtra appellate court rules

Representation pic/iStock

A Co-Operative housing society cannot be held responsible for leakage or seepage caused by defects inside a member's flat, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court has ruled, holding that such disputes are primarily between the affected property owner and the owner of the flat from where the leakage originates.

Dismissing an appeal filed by two shop owners against Raj Exotica Co-operative Housing Society in Mira Road, the appellate court upheld an earlier order of the Co-operative Court, Thane, refusing interim relief.

In a July 4 order upholding the Co-operative Court, Thane's decision, President SS Sapatnekar held that housing societies are responsible only for common areas and infrastructure - not internal plumbing or bathrooms inside privately owned flats.

Key takeaway

Society's responsibility: Common areas and common infrastructure only.
Flat owner's responsibility: Internal plumbing, bathrooms and defects inside the flat.

The dispute

Shop owners Saroj Kumar B Gupta and Vinod Kumar Gupta alleged that leakage from Flat No. 103, owned by Pratima S Srivastav, had damaged their ground-floor shop since March 2022. They claimed repeated requests to repair the upstairs washroom went unanswered, causing financial losses.

They sought Rs 5 lakh for repairs, Rs 1 lakh as compensation and interim directions to either renovate the shop immediately or deposit Rs 1 lakh towards repair costs. The society said it contacted the flat owner after receiving the complaint but maintained that repairs inside private flats are not its responsibility.

What it means

>> Housing societies are not liable for leakage between privately owned units.
>> Owners can repair their own premises during the pendency of the case.
>> If they later prove the leakage originated from the upstairs flat, they can recover the repair costs from that flat owner.
>> The appellate court found no error in Co-operative Court's order

Evidence showed

>> An infrared thermographic survey found severe seepage.
>> Moisture appeared to originate from Flat No. 103.
>> Repairs to the upstairs washroom were recommended.

Why the court refused relief

The court said:
>> A housing society is responsible only for maintaining common areas.
>> Internal plumbing and washrooms repairs are the flat owner's responsibility.
>> Granting repair costs at interim stage would effectively amount to granting final relief before trial.
>> The court also noted that while the shop owners relied on technical evidence, they had not sought an interim direction asking the flat owner to repair her washroom.
>> The court said the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case warranting a mandatory interim injunction.