Sanctioned basement storage may qualify as a flat for cooperative-society membership.

The first respondent claimed rights over basement premises in the petitioner society’s building under an agreement with the developer and sought society membership.

The original sanctioned plan provided for 59.02 sq. m. of basement storage space; a later proposal to regularise the basement and unauthorised sixth and seventh floors was processed but not sanctioned.

In 2009, the Deputy Registrar granted the respondent deemed membership, which the society challenged after a substantial delay.

The High Court set aside the earlier orders and remanded the matter for determination of whether the premises were a “flat” or part of the common areas.

On remand, the Deputy Registrar again directed that membership be granted. The society challenged that order directly by writ petition, without pursuing a statutory revision

1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the society’s failure to pursue the statutory revision remedy under Section 154 of the MCS Act

2. Whether the Deputy Registrar exceeded the scope of the remand, or otherwise erred in treating the basement premises as a “flat” eligible for membership

3. Whether, and to what extent, the respondent was entitled to membership and redevelopment benefits in respect of the basement premises

Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) provides the route for an application concerning membership; an order made under it is revisable under Section 154, and the availability of that remedy ordinarily weighs against writ intervention, subject to recognised exceptions such as lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice

The definition of “flat” in Section 2(a-1) of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act and Section 154B-1(13) of the MCS Act includes specified self-contained premises, including a godown, while Section 154B-5 limits membership to the number of flats or plots available in the society

The Court relied on *Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.* for the treatment of common areas, while noting that a basement is not invariably a common amenity; *Ashwini Heights CHSL v. Jyoti Nitin Lunia* supports membership where a basement godown is sanctioned as a separate premises

The Court also applied the principle that a party’s conduct may be relevant to whether it can resile from a position it previously adopted, while recognising that estoppel cannot ordinarily override the law

The Court held that the Deputy Registrar had not exceeded the remand: the authority considered the relevant plans and the statutory definition of “flat,” although it mistakenly treated the Chief Fire Officer’s 2008 no-objection document as evidence of sanction; that document was not itself a sanctioned plan

On the merits, the Court found that the basement was not necessarily a common amenity in its entirety, since 59.02 sq. m. had been sanctioned as storage in the original plan.

The society had also supported regularisation of the basement, provided related NOCs and previously accepted the respondent’s membership, making its changed position relevant in the circumstances

Given that the sixth- and seventh-floor premises were also unauthorised, and the society’s building was to be redeveloped, the Court found no sufficient basis to exclude the respondent from membership and redevelopment benefits.

However, the claimed 2,700 sq. ft. exceeded the basement actually constructed, and membership was therefore confined to the sanctioned 59.02 sq. m.

It confirmed the respondent’s membership, limited to 59.02 sq. m. of basement premises, and directed that this area be treated as residential for the purpose of redevelopment benefits.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs; a request to stay the judgment was rejected