Bombay High Court Rules Housing Society Maintenance Dues Have No Limitation Period

The Bombay High Court has ruled that maintenance and service charges owed to a cooperative housing society are a recurring, continuing liability that cannot be blocked by the ordinary law of limitation. Justice Amit Borkar delivered the ruling on 16 January 2026, dismissing a petition filed by two elderly brothers who had challenged recovery proceedings brought by Pasayadan Cooperative Housing Society in Thane.

The dispute over decades-old dues

The petitioners, Aspandiar Rashid Irani (96) and Gustad Rashid Irani (86), had taken possession of four flats in 2007 under an unregistered 1996 development agreement with a builder, but were never formally admitted as society members. In 2023, the society demanded arrears going back to 2005 and began recovery proceedings under Section 154B-29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — a special provision that lets societies recover dues through the Registrar's office rather than a civil suit. The brothers argued the claim was time-barred under the general Limitation Act, and that without a registered flat-purchase agreement they could not be treated as members liable for society dues.

What the court held

Justice Borkar rejected both arguments. The judgment held that Section 154B-29 is a special recovery mechanism, and where a special law provides its own remedy, the general Limitation Act does not automatically apply. Because maintenance is billed periodically, each unpaid instalment creates a fresh, ongoing default rather than a single time-barred claim. The court further held that anyone who occupies a flat, pays property tax and uses society facilities can be made liable for dues even without a registered ownership agreement — and that occupants who acted as promoters under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act cannot use that status to escape their payment obligations.

What this means for housing societies

• Societies are not barred from pursuing old, unpaid maintenance dues merely because years have passed since the amount fell due.
• Recovery action under Section 154B-29 of the MCS Act can be initiated against occupants even if they were never formally admitted as members.
• A missing or unregistered sale agreement does not by itself shield an occupant from liability for maintenance and service charges.
• Committees should still keep clear, dated demand and reminder records, since courts examine the actual billing and demand history in each case.

The ruling gives Maharashtra's housing societies stronger legal footing to pursue long-pending recoveries without fear that a claim will be dismissed on a limitation technicality. Managing committees sitting on old defaulter lists may want their recovery notices and Section 154B-29 applications reviewed, since this judgment can now be cited in support of such claims before the Registrar or Co-operative Court.