The Bombay High Court has intervened in a long-running dispute at the distinguished Marlboro House Cooperative Housing Society on Pedder Road, ordering a fresh verification of whether a tiny premises inside the Art Deco building can legally be recognised as a separate flat. The ruling comes at a time when the debate over the property has deeply divided residents ahead of society elections.
Delivering its order on Friday, the court noted that membership was granted to a resident without first determining whether the so-called flat existed as an independent unit in the sanctioned building plan. The court has now paused further action and placed the burden on authorities to establish the legal status of the premises before it can influence the society’s voting structure.
Roots of the dispute
The case was brought before the High Court by residents Uday Dalal, Ajay Biyani and Rina Pritish Nandy, who asserted that Marlboro House, registered in 1996, was built with only six authorised flats. According to them, the disputed premises, around 150 sq ft. Were historically shown merely as a servant room attached to an existing flat and never identified as a stand-alone residential unit in the sanctioned plan.
The controversy escalated when, during the period when the society was placed under an Administrator, the premises were sold by Ruvin Realty Pvt Ltd to Prachi Agarwal, the daughter-in-law of resident Rajendra Agarwal. Soon after, a fresh share certificate and membership were issued in her name.
Petitioners allege that the transaction served an ulterior electoral motive rather than a genuine residential sale. They argue that in a small cooperative society, where each vote carries substantial value, converting a former servant room into a seventh flat created an additional vote, one that could shift the balance of power before the formation of a new managing committee.
Concerns heightened when the provisional list released for the upcoming elections suddenly listed nine members, including Prachi Agarwal, Kushal Agarwal and an entity called Capital Mind. Residents opposing the transaction claim this was a deliberate attempt to manufacture a voting majority.
What the High Court examined
The case centres on a fundamental legal question: can any space resembling a residential room be treated as an independent flat, or must it explicitly appear as a flat in the sanctioned municipal plan to qualify for independent membership in the housing society?
In its observations, the High Court underlined that a society’s membership cannot exceed the number of authorised flats shown in the approved building plans. That cap, the court said, cannot be altered through a general body resolution, private sale agreement or any administrative decision.
The bench also rejected the assertion that society members lack the right to challenge memberships once granted. It held that objections are legally valid when they point to actions that may alter the democratic character of the society or undermine electoral fairness.
Next steps and timeline
As an interim measure, the High Court has set aside the membership granted to Prachi Agarwal and directed the deputy registrar to conduct an independent verification. Authorities must obtain:
- the sanctioned building plan,
- records of any approved modifications, and
- corresponding municipal documents.
These will be compared to determine whether the disputed premises were ever authorised as a separate flat or were part of an existing residential unit.
If the inquiry concludes that the space was never approved as a stand-alone flat, the membership cannot be counted for determining the society’s voting strength at the time of elections.
The deputy registrar has four weeks to complete the collection and analysis of documents and twelve weeks to issue a reasoned order after hearing all involved parties.
Broader implications
The Marlboro House case has attracted attention across Mumbai’s cooperative housing sector, where disputes over flat status, redevelopment rights and voting blocks are increasingly common. Legal experts say the order reinforces a crucial precedent: electoral structures of cooperative societies must be tied to authorised architecture, not post-construction improvisations or internal power battles.
For residents of Marlboro House, the ruling offers a temporary pause, but not closure. With elections looming, the final determination on the contested premises will likely shape the society’s governance for years to come.
Subscribe Deshwale on YouTube
Share.Facebook
