HC Rules: Heir of Basement Unit Owner Entitled to Housing Society Membership

Housing disputes in cooperative societies often arise from unclear rules, inconsistent decisions, or misunderstandings about an heir’s legal rights. One issue that frequently leads to conflict is whether a person inheriting a basement, garage, or storage unit can be granted housing society membership, especially when the unit is not a traditional residential flat. A recent ruling by the Bombay High Court has brought important clarity to this question, reaffirming that an heir is entitled to membership when the society had previously admitted their parents as members for the same premises.

Background: A Basement Unit and a Long Wait for Membership

The case involved the Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society in Mumbai’s Nariman Point, where the parents of the respondent had owned a basement premises for decades. They did not own a flat in the building, yet the society admitted the father as a member in 1966 and later admitted the mother after his death. When the mother passed away in 2007, her son, named as the nominee, applied for the transfer of her shares and housing society membership.

Despite repeated applications between 2016 and 2021 and even being given “nominal membership” at one stage, the society refused to grant him full membership. Their argument was simple: the basement unit could only be used for parking or storage and, therefore, according to them, did not qualify for membership rights.

Also Read: SMREIT Market to Exceed $75 Billion Driven by 500 Million Sq Ft Assets

How the Dispute Escalated

After years of waiting, the heir approached the deputy registrar under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (MCS Act). He explained that he had been using the premises as a storage and office space for over two decades and that there were no competing claims to the property. The society, in turn, insisted that since he did not own a flat, he had no basis to claim housing society membership.

The deputy registrar ruled in the heir’s favour, finding that he was entitled to full membership. The society appealed to the divisional joint registrar, who upheld the decision. Refusing to accept this, the society moved to the Bombay High Court.

What the Bombay High Court Ruled

Justice Amit Borkar upheld the registrar’s orders and clarified why the son was fully entitled to housing society membership.

1. Statutory obligation under the MCS Act

Section 154-13 of the MCS Act requires a society to transfer the “share, right, title, and interest” of a deceased member to their heir or nominee when there is no legal dispute. In this case, the respondent was the sole successor, and there were no competing claims.

2. Society cannot contradict its own past conduct

The court emphasized that the society had previously granted membership to both parents, even though the unit was a basement space. Once the society has recognized such premises as eligible for membership, it cannot deny the heir the same right.

3. No arbitrary denial permitted

Justice Borkar noted that society tried to suddenly claim that a basement is ineligible for membership despite admitting two generations of owners. This, the court said, is arbitrary and contrary to the society’s own records.

4. A nominee steps into the shoes of the deceased member

The court reiterated the settled principle that the nominee or heir succeeds to the deceased member’s rights unless another claimant legally disputes the transfer.

Why This Judgment Matters

This decision significantly strengthens the legal framework around housing society membership, especially for owners of non-residential or auxiliary units. It ensures that:

• Societies cannot reverse long-standing practices to deny heirs their rights.
• Owners of basement units, garages, storerooms, or commercial spaces are protected.
• Natural succession cannot be blocked without valid legal grounds.
• Cooperative housing societies must operate transparently and consistently.

For thousands of unit owners across Maharashtra, especially in older buildings where original layouts included storage spaces and basements, this judgment removes ambiguity and ensures fairness.

Also Read: How Hyderabad Is Surpassing Bengaluru as India’s Top Hub for Global Capability Centres

Key Takeaways for Societies and Homeowners

• If the society admits the original owner as a member, their heir cannot be denied the same right.
• Nominees and legal heirs are entitled to the transfer of rights, barring any legal dispute.
• Societies must comply with the mandatory provisions of the MCS Act.
• Arbitrary distinctions between “flat owners” and “basement owners” are not legally sustainable.
• Maintaining consistency in membership decisions is crucial to avoid litigation.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s ruling reinforces an essential principle, housing society membership must be guided by law, not by arbitrary or selective decisions of society committees. By upholding the heir’s right, the court has ensured that cooperative housing governance remains fair, transparent, and respectful of succession rights. This judgment will serve as a reliable precedent for many similar disputes, offering much-needed clarity to homeowners and housing societies across the state.