Senior citizen fined for parking in open space wins relief; Maharashtra court orders housing society to allot a convenient parking spot

When Mrs. Deepali Dilip Bhube from Naigaon, Dadar bought a flat in 2011, the builder allotted her a car parking space at Level P1-19. However, she was not happy with this spot and expressed her concern with the builder, who reassured her that the parking slot was temporary and suggested she discuss it with the housing society.

However, the issue was not resolved and became more aggravated instead. Starting 2014, it became very difficult for her to park her car since her designated parking spot in P-1-19 was squeezed between two other parking slots. She had to wait for the other vehicles to be moved from both the front as well as the back of her space just to park her car. She once again brought the issue to the housing society's attention, but they failed to take action, leading her to park her car in the open space of the housing complex.

This decision to park her car in the open space did not sit well with the housing society and they penalised her by charging a fine of Rs 200 per day for parking her car in the open space. On January 28, 2025, the housing society sent her a letter saying that she was penalised Rs 1,800 for 9 days of parking in the open space at the rate of Rs 200 per day/night.


Upset with the fine, she quickly approached the court, seeking an interim order to stop the society from imposing those penalties and for resolving her parking issue.

The court issued an interim order granting her appeal and asked the Society to stop the penal charges and to give her a convenient parking slot within 15 days. The Society then appealed to the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai.

In front of the court, she submitted an Architect's report which prima facie confirmed that her parking slot had become sandwiched and had become unusable due to unauthorised additions.

On July 18, 2026, Justice Dr. Srishty Neelkanth of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai ruled in Mrs. Deepali Dilip Bhube's favour.

Also read: Parking dispute turns costly: Homebuyer loses court case after neighbour occupies his parking space with second car, here's why

Keep reading to know how Mrs. Deepali Dilip Bhube won the case.

How Mrs. Deepali Dilip Bhube won the case

Sadhav Mishra, Senior Partner and Head of Real Estate, SNG & Partners, Advocates & Solicitors, said to ET Wealth Online: The homebuyer (Mrs. Deepali Dilip Bhube) produced extensive written complaints showing her parking slot (P-1-19) was "sandwiched" between two other vehicles, forcing her to rely on the removal of cars in front and behind hers to move her vehicle. She (homebuyer) submitted an Architect’s Report, which confirmed that her parking slot was sandwiched and had rendered unusable due to unauthorized additions. This established a strong prima facie case of physical hardship.

Also read: Can housing societies charge separately for facilities like gyms or swimming pools in addition to maintenance fees? Know what the law says

Mishra explains the grounds basis which the society lost are as under:

(i) Failure to Comply with Statutory Bye-Law Procedures for Penalties

Legal Point: Under Model Bye-law 165(a) of the Co-operative Housing Society bye-laws, penalties levied on members cannot exceed ?5,000 in a financial year. Crucially, imposing such a penalty requires prior notice to the defaulting member and an explicit resolution passed in the General Body meeting.

Why the Society Lost: The society unilaterally imposed an exorbitant penalty of Rs 200 per day (demanding Rs 1,800 for just 9 days) for open parking. The court noted that there was no record to prove the society followed due statutory process as no prior notice was issued, nor was a General Body resolution produced to justify the Rs 200/day charge.

(ii) Documented evidence of inaccessible allotment & structural discrepancies

Legal Point: A housing society is obligated to ensure that allotted common amenities (such as parking space) are usable and compliant with sanctioned safety plans and bye-laws.

(iii) Rejection of the Society's "Ignorance / Internal Administrative Lapse" Defence

Legal Point: Internal administrative transitions (such as an Administrator taking over management) cannot be used to invalidate legal proceedings or strip a member of procedural rights.

Why the society lost: The housing society argued that an Administrator was managing affairs and was unaware of the court dispute, leading to an ex-parte situation. However, the court examined court roznamas (proceeding logs) showing that the society's legal representatives/advocates had appeared in court on multiple occasions (August 20, August 22, and September 16, 2025) and filed a Vakalatnama. The court held that failure of an Administrator to disclose pending disputes during handovers is an internal administrative lapse that does not prejudice the homebuyer.

Mishra says: "The court held that failure of an Administrator to disclose pending disputes during handovers is an internal administrative lapse that does not prejudice the homebuyer."

Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court order

A summary of the judgement (CNR No.MHCA010002132025, dated July 18, 2026) is as follows:

Housing society said it was unaware of any legal proceedings initiated by her

The housing society said that from February 2025 they were under an administrator and so were unaware of any dispute about parking space raised by her. However, the court observed that from the roznamas filed on record on August 20, 2025, an advocate named Rahi Patil for the Society was present in the court.

On the next date, that is on August 22, 2025, the representative of the Society was also present. Thereafter, on September 16, 2025, the advocate of the Society filed his Vakaltnama.

The court said: "This clearly shows that the Appellant /Opponent Society was being represented by their representative or their advocate, hence, the Society's plea of ignorance is not sustainable."

Society did not place any evidence about following model bye-laws

The court observed that the Model bye-law 165(a) prescribes a penalty not exceeding Rs 5,000 in any financial year, subject to notice being given to the member who had committed the breach and a subsequent resolution in the General Body meeting.

"Nothing is on record to show that due procedure was followed before imposing a penalty to the Disputant (Smt Bhube). Furthermore, no prima facie material is produced to justify levy of penalty of Rs 200 per day."

Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court judgement

The court said that Smt Bhube is a senior citizen who is facing hardship on a daily basis for parking her vehicle and is facing mental and financial agony by the coercive demand of a penalty of Rs 200 per day, imposed on her by the Society, thus if interim relief is not granted to her, she would continue to face inconvenience and financial burden.

On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the Society, if one convenient slot is earmarked for Smt Bhube in accordance with the sanctioned plan and byelaws, as such arrangement can always be revisited at final adjudication.

Thus on this ground the court granted her relief and ruled in her favour as denial of such relief would result in irreparable loss to her in terms of daily inconvenience, emotional harassment and financial hardship because of the 'acts' of the Society.