SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Del) 2634

High Court of Delhi
G. ROHINI & RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, JJ.
Balraj Singh Malik
Versus
Govt. of Nct of Delhi & Another
W.P.(C) No. 8302 of 2014 & CM No. 19254 of 2014
Decided on: 22-12-2014

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sanjay Sharawat with Ratish Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, Sangeeta Sondhi, Advocate.

Headnote:

Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 2007 - Rule 102(2) - Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 - Sections 76, 89, 93, 137(2) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 19(1)(c) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Society - Locus of Tenant - Decision of society - Binding on tenant - Respondent No. 2 Society was allotted land and has constructed a multi-storied building - Flats were allotted to the members of the respondent No. 2 Society - Petitioner is a tenant in Flat - Respondent No. 2 Society had initially fixed Rs. 1800/-as monthly maintenance charges to be paid with respect to each of the flats - Petitioner in accordance with the agreement, besides paying the rent of the flat, is also liable to pay the said maintenance charges directly to the Society - Society in its Annual General Body Meeting - In accordance with decision, members of the respondent No. 2 Society who are self occupying their flats have to pay monthly maintenance charges at Rs. 2624/- but the members whose flats are occupied by tenants are required to pay Rs. 2924/- per month with effect from November, 2014 and Rs. 3124/- per month with effect from April, 2015 - No member of the Society has any grievance with such a decision - It is for the tenants of the said members to, if of the view that the rate at which they are paying the rent and at which they are required to pay the maintenance charges is not worth the facilities, amenities provided or the aggregate thereof is higher than the market rate, to quit the same - Once the tenant has come into occupation of the property, he cannot be permitted to dictate qua the affairs of the Society - Held, decision of the General Body of the respondent No. 2 Society cannot be said to be inequitable - Tenants cannot be said to be equally placed as members of a co-operative society in self occupation of their flats.

Judgment

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns Rule 102(2) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 2007 (Rules) framed under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (the Act) to the extent it enables the General Body of the Co-operative Group Housing Society to fix higher charges of essential services in respect of dwelling units which are on rent and in possession of tenants, on the ground of being ultra vires Sections 76, 89 and 93 read with Section 137(2) and other provisions of the Act and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Axiomatically, the decision taken by the respondent No.2 Crown Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., Dwarka, Phase-I, New Delhi in its Annual General Body Meeting held on 12th October, 2014 and as recorded in Minutes/Letter dated 26th October, 2014, to increase the maintenance charges for flats on rent from the existing rate of Rs.2624/- per month by Rs.300/-per month from November, 2014 till March, 2015 and by Rs.500/- with effect from April, 2015, is also impugned.

2. It is the case of the petitioner:

(i) that the respondent No.2 Society was allotted land at plot No.18-B, Sector-7, Dwarka, Phase-I, New Delhi and has constructed a multi-storeyed building having 70 flats thereon and which flats were allotted to the members of the respondent No.2 Society;

(ii) that of the said 70 flats, 40-45 flats are presently occupied by tenants;

(iii) that the petitioner is a tenant in Flat No.A-902 in the said Co-operative Society;

(iv) that the respondent No.2 Society had initially fixed Rs.1800/- as monthly maintenance charges to be paid with respect to each of the flats;

(v) that the petitioner in accordance with the agreement with his landlord, who is a member of the said Society and the allottee of the said flat, besides paying the rent of the flat, is also liable to pay the said maintenance charges directly to the Society;

(vi) that the Society in its Annual General Body Meeting held on 12th October, 2014 took various decisions and with respect to Agenda Item No.5(e) took the decision as under:

“(e) Discussion of Increase in Maintenance Charges The Secretary informed the House that Society, on account of Maintenance Charges, collects from members Rs.1,26,000/- and expenses are approx. Rs.1,55,000/- due to running of Water Pump for 23 Hrs. daily. This inflates the common area consumption very high and also tariff rates have gone up.

To meet this expense, we have two options-

* Option 1 – Increase maintenance by Rs.500/- per member, but still there will be no margin for contingencies.

* Option 2 – No increase in maintenance but distribution of common area electricity bill amount equally amongst all 70 members, then we will have little margin for contingencies.

Few members also suggested increasing the maintenance charges for members who have rented out their flats.

Decision: - To meet the requirement the following decisions had been taken/approved by the House.

(i) With regards to Common area electricity amount, the same be distributed and recovered from all 70 Members with effect from Nov. 2014 and the same be reflected in monthly bill. No payment will be made from Maintenance Charges towards electricity bill w.e.f. Nov. 2014.

(ii) Maintenance Charges for flats on rent be increased by Rs.300/- till Mar. 2015 with effect from Nov. 2014 and by Rs.500/- with effect from Apr. 2015.”

(vii) that in accordance with the aforesaid decision, members of the respondent No.2 Society who are self occupying their flats have to pay monthly maintenance charges at Rs.2624/- but the members whose flats are occupied by tenants are required to pay Rs.2924/- per month with effect from November, 2014 and Rs.3124/- per month with effect from April, 2015;

(viii) that the said differentia has no rational nexus with the objective;

(ix) that the respondent No.2 Society has so decided in accordance with Rule 102 of the Rules (supra) and the relevant portion whereof is as under:

(1) The Com












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top