Resident accused of maintenance default and nuisance wins eviction case lodged by housing society; Maharashtra co-op appellate court explains why

For 38 years, Mr Joshi from Dahisar (West), Mumbai had to fight a legal battle for his two units inside a housing society as the society did not want him to conduct his business from these units and issued eviction orders. On July 9, 2026, President Sau. S.S. Sapatnekar of the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Appellate Court, Mumbai came to Joshi's aid by ruling that a housing society has no right to order eviction of a resident.

Keep reading to know the full details of Mr Joshi's 38-year-long struggle and how he ultimately won the battle and prevented being evicted by the housing society. Advocate G.K. Shetty and Advocate U.K. Shetty represented Joshi before the appellate court. Advocate Jayesh Mistry represented the housing society.

Brief background about Joshi's business

Mr Joshi bought two units directly from M/s. Vijaylaxmi Constructions (the builder) through an agreement dated December 8, 1985, making full payment and even shelling out extra cash to use the society's open space. He got all the necessary permissions from the government and the builder (since at that time the society was not formed), including a liquor license, and converted the two units he purchased into a bar-cum-restaurant business.


However, once the society was formed, disputes began between Joshi and the society members. On October 20, 1988, the society terminated Joshi's tenancy and occupancy rights for the premises by passing a resolution in their managing committee meeting.

The society raised complaints that Joshi hadn't paid maintenance fees, and that his restaurant's drunk customers often got into fights in the open space where Joshi allegedly served alcohol. The housing society also alleged that Joshi was playing orchestra and drums in his restaurant late into the night, disturbing the sleep of the other members of the society and hampering the study of the college and school-going children, contributing to noise pollution.

The housing society also said that the ground floor residents couldn't open the windows as the open space at the southern end of the society was being used by Joshi's employees for taking bath and even for answering nature's call.

On June 9, 2026 Joshi won the case in Maharashtra State Co-Operative Appellate Court, Mumbai. Keep reading to know why.

Why did Joshi win this case?

Amitraj Kaushal, Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India, said to ET Wealth Online: Two things worked in his favour here. First, the shops actually belonged to M/s. Y.D. Enterprises, a partnership firm, not to Joshi personally, and the society never brought the individual partners into the dispute, which is a fatal defect since a firm cannot be sued on its own.

Secondly, Kaushal says that the Appellate Court found that the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (MCS) simply has no provision anywhere that lets a society claim vacant possession from a member who owns their premises. There is no landlord-tenant relationship here to begin with.

What should residents know about their rights when a society threatens eviction?

Kaushal says that the first thing to understand is that a housing society has no general power to evict an owner, that language does not exist anywhere in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

At most a society can pursue expulsion from membership, and only through a defined process with a hearing and majority vote, not a unilateral notice.

Kaushal says: "If you are ever facing something like this, ask specifically which provision of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act the society is relying on, because in most cases, much like here, there simply is not one."

Kaushal says that if a housing society wants to act against a member, its only real tool is expulsion from membership and that comes with a strict process under Section 35 and Rules 28 and 29, including a hearing and a three-fourths majority at a general body meeting, later confirmed by the Registrar.

Kaushal says: "What a managing committee cannot do is pass a resolution and simply order someone to vacate their own property. That is not eviction under co-operative law, that is something the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not contemplate at all."

Maharashtra State Co-Operative Appellate Court order

A summary of the judgement (CNR No.MHCA010000442025) is as follows:

Housing's society's secretary's affidavit proves Joshi's firm is a member of the society
In his affidavit, the housing society's secretary, Mr Sardal, claimed that Joshi was a member of the society and an allottee of two units. However, during cross-examination, Sardal admitted that Joshi's firm and not Joshi personally was a member of the society and that the share certificates had been issued in the firm's name.

Sardal also admitted that in a letter sent by the society to the Kandivali Fire Brigade on April 14, 1987, Joshi's firm was referred to as a member of the society.

Thus, Joshi says that his partnership company is the member, not him. He states that the dispute case should have been filed against the partnership firm and not against him as this partnership firm was formed in 1985 (registered in 1993) with three partners and he has since retired on July 31, 1992.

The court accepted Joshi's arguments and ruled in his favour on this point.

Society's secretary himself admitted in 2009 that Joshi cleared his outstanding maintenance dues
The appellate court observed that Mr Sardal in his cross examination recorded on January 29, 2008 had admitted that as of that date, Joshi and his firm had no maintenance dues pending with the society.

Therefore, for this point, the appellate court ruled in Joshi's favour.

If society had any problem with noise and nuisance by Joshi's firm, they need to follow the appropriate process
The housing society had claimed that Joshi's restaurant had become a constant source of trouble for residents and also alleged that loud music played late into the night disturbed families, customers misused common areas, and the restaurant's activities created a nuisance in the building.

The Appellate Court said this point does survive in this court as the truth of these allegations can't be decided in proceedings under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The appellate court said that even if the society believed Joshi's restaurant was creating a nuisance, the society had to follow the legal process for expelling Joshi's firm under Section 35 and Rules 28 and 29 of the MCS Rules, and not seek his eviction from the premises.

The appellate court also observed that the society has drafted the dispute as if it is a suit between landlord and tenant under Bombay Rent Act.

Housing society has no legal right to seek eviction of Joshi
The appellate court said that a housing society has no right to seek eviction and possession of Joshi's restaurant as there is no landlord-tenant relationship between them. Moreover, the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act has no law or rule which allows a housing society to evict its members.

The appellate court said that when the society's advocate was asked regarding provisions of the MCS Act or Rules under which the society can seek the vacant possession of the premises, he conceded that there was no such provision either in Act or in the Rules.

Being a co-operative society, the court said, at the most the society has responsibility to maintain the building of the society and common spaces and to collect the maintenance charges from its members for paying the necessary outgoings. A co-operative society also has the right to file the dispute for recovery of its dues against members.

So, this ground was also decided in favour of Joshi.

Thus Joshi won the case after a 38 year fight (original case no. No.CC/IV/1318/1988).