Summary: The Bombay High Court dismissed the Irani brothers' requests about unpaid maintenance fees from a Thane housing society, highlighting the legal responsibilities of apartment owners.
Aspandiar Rashid Irani, 96, and Gustad Rashid Irani, 86, both businessmen from Thane, were involved in a legal fight with the Pasayadan Cooperative Housing Society. The argument was about unpaid maintenance fees going back to 2005. The society was registered in 2005, but the Irani brothers said they never got maintenance bills until 2023.
On March 29, 2023, the society sent a notice asking for unpaid maintenance fees from 2005. When the brothers didn’t pay, the society took legal action under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act on September 27, 2024, to get the money owed.
The Irani brothers argued that the applications to recover money were too late according to time-limit laws. They said they were not members of the society, so the society couldn’t make them pay. They also mentioned there was no signed agreement for their apartments.
"The applications filed by the society in 2023 seek recovery of arrears from 2005 without proper calculation," argued Mr. Gole, the brothers' lawyer.
The society, represented by Mr. Bhadrashete, argued that the Irani brothers were basically apartment owners and acted like it by paying property taxes. The society said the fees were legal responsibilities that didn’t disappear over time.
"The society is entitled to proceed against a member or a person in occupation," argued Mr. Bhadrashete.
Justice Amit Borkar decided that the society fees were ongoing responsibilities connected to the apartments and could be enforced against the people living there. The court stressed that the Cooperative Societies Act provides a special way to recover money that is more important than general time-limit laws.
"The obligation to pay society dues is not a one-time obligation. It is a recurring and continuing obligation," noted the judgment.
The court rejected the petitions, confirming that the society was right to try to collect the fees. The request to pause the judgment was also denied.
