Can a housing society bar its members from letting out their flats to Bachelors, Spinsters and Foreigners? Part-1

Consumer court rules against residents of building at Marol who do not want bachelors, spinsters and Foreigners, as ‘they are causing a nuisance’

Can a housing society bar its members from letting out their flats to Bachelors, spinsters and foreigners? The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission last week upheld a District Consumer Forum’s interim order restraining a housing society at Marol from evicting bachelors who are staying in the building as tenants.

In August 2008, Akruti Aneri Co-op Housing Society had passed a resolution that owners can rent out flats only to families. All members who had let out flats to bachelors and spinsters were asked to get them vacated by October 1.

The agenda circulated at the society’s special general body meeting said bachelors, spinsters and foreigners residing in the society were causing a nuisance. “There has been a case of suicide, a few foreigners were involved in a sex racket, inadequately dressed females and males gather in the open area of the society at odd hours...”, it said. The resolution was approved by a majority vote.

Aggrieved by the society’s decision, Cynthia and Salvador Pinto, who had let out two flats to bachelors, challenged the resolution in the district consumer forum.

Advocate U B Wavikar, who represented the Pintos, said, “The society’s resolution was unfair and unjust. Copies of all leave-and-licence agreements and police verification of tenants was submitted by the Pintos to the housing society. All bachelors and spinsters cannot be said to be engaged in unlawful activities and there are legal remedies to take action against offenders.”

In October, the forum ruled in their favour. It noted that society did not give specific instances of wrong-doings and nuisance by the tenants. In an interim order, it restrained the housing society from implementing the resolution till July 31, 2009.

The society challenged the forum’s order before the state commission.

Advocate Rajan Malkani, who represented the society, argued that consumer courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the case, which is essentially a dispute between a housing co-operative society and one of its members.

B B Vagyani, president of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, rejected the society’s appeal. “The district forum has not committed any impropriety or illegality. The revision petition filed by the petitioner (housing society) is without any merits...”, Vagyani noted in the order. But Malkani said the commission did not go into the merits of the case and had ruled only on whether consumer courts have jurisdiction to pass orders in such cases.

Wavikar relied on Supreme Court judgements and argued that the consumer court can hear such a dispute.

“We have been renting out our flats to employees of software companies for the last five years. I am a retired person and the rent is our only source of income.

“In 2006, the society had taken a decision to levy an annual charge of Rs 10,000 as premium from members who let out their flats. But the decision was not implemented because it was approved by the registrar of co-operative societies.”