No Redevelopment Rights in Garages and Podium Areas In Disputed Membership Claim
Judgment dated 5.11.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Interim Application No.5460 of 2026 in Commercial Suit No.105 of 2026 of Minoo Tejraj Gowani Vs. Saidale Cooperative Housing Society Limited and another
It is Plaintiff’s pleaded case in the Plaint is that she is a member of Defendant No.1-Society and held allotment in respect of one shop and entire lower-level podium with 22 garages in respect of structure constructed on land of Defendant No.1-Society at CTS No.701, Malabar and Cumbala Hill Division. The Plaintiff claims to have purchased one shop on the lower-level podium and entire lower-level podium with 22 garages vide registered Deeds of Confirmation dated 4 February 1999 executed by the Chairman and the Secretary of the Society. The Plaintiff claims that application for membership was filed by her father-Tejraj Gowani in his capacity as father and natural guardian of Plaintiff, who was minor at that time. The Plaintiff claims that she was admitted as member of Defendant No.1-Society on the strength of purchase of one shop and 22 garages.
On 20 July 2022 Defendant No.1 Society issued notice setting out a proposal for redevelopment. The Plaintiff submitted response dated 26 July 2022. The Defendant No.1 did not respond back to the Plaintiff.
In the above background, the Plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking various declaratory and injunctive reliefs for protecting her claim in respect of membership qua one shop and 22 garages. As observed above, she has filed the present Interim Application seeking temporary injunction in the Suit.
area of shop is 774 sq.mtrs. and since Development Agreement dated 6 October 2025 envisages allotment of 22% additional area the Plaintiff is entitled to commercial/shop premises of 944.28 sq.ft. in new building. That Defendant No. 1–Society is obligated to provide alternative premises in lieu of the 22 garages, together with a proportionate increase in the area. It is pertinent to note that all 22 garages claimed by the Plaintiff are duly reflected in the sanctioned plans. That mere sanction to 22 garages as car parking spaces would not affect Plaintiff’s entitlement as what is sold by the Society to the Plaintiff is 22 garages.
So far as the claim towards 22 garages or the entire lower level podium is concerned, in my view, no interim protection or arrangement needs to be granted/made. This is because no membership can be granted in favour of any person of a co-operative housing society in respect of a stand-alone garage. It is impossible to fathom as to why somebody would purchase 22 garages for operation of one shop. A garage or a car parking space in a building is a mere amenity attached to a flat. A garage or a car parking space does not have any independent existence. If there is no flat, there cannot be any garage or car parking space. Thus, garages or car parking spaces can be allotted only for the purpose of better enjoyment of the flat in the building of the society. At this interim stage, I do not wish to delve deeper into the aspect of permissibility to grant membership qua the garage. However, I am of the prima-facie view that Plaintiff could not have been granted any membership qua 22 garages. Garages/car parking spaces are free of FSI and a part of a common amenity. It is not permissible either for a developer or a society to exclusively sell a garage/car parking space either to an outsider or even to its own member particularly for the purpose of grant of independent membership qua such garage/car parking space.
Under the provisions of the MCS Act, membership can be claimed only in respect of a ‘flat’ which is sanctioned in the developmentpermission. No membership can be claimed or granted qua common amenity spaces. Since a garage or car parking space is not covered by definition of the term ‘flat’ either under Section 2(a-1) of MOFA or under Section 154B-1(13) of MCS Act, no membership can be granted in respect of mere car parking space.
