Housing Society Penal Charges for Parking Bicycle in the Staircase
Judgment dated 25.8.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.11021 of 2026 of Yogini Bhupendra Parikh and another Vs. District Deputy registrar Cooperative Societies, Mumbai and others.
Society Penal Charges for Parking Bicycle in the Staircase
The case involves a rather bizarre situation where a cooperative society has sought to recover from its member Rs. 15,45,730/- towards penal charges for parking of a bicycle worth Rs. 11,000/- in the staircase.
The petitioners are the members of the respondent no.3 society in flat no.9 of building no.1.
The Society accused Petitioners of encroaching upon common spaces by parking bicycle between first and ground floor of the building for 11 years and accordingly called upon the Petitioners in which an amount of Rs. 6,89,220/- was levied towards penal rent for encroachment on common space from April-2010 to March 2021. The Society demanded outstanding amount by letter dated 9 June 2022. Since the Petitioners did not pay the amount, notices dated 28 March 2024 and 29 April 2024 were issued to them. Advocate’s notice dated 19 June 2024 was also issued to the Petitioners demanding Rs.10,74,107/- as on 1 May 2024 towards penalty and interest. The Society thereafter filed Recovery Application No.8 of 2024 before the Deputy Registrar for recovery of Rs. 15,36,860/-.
Provisions for recovery of penalties for encroachment in common areas is introduced in the new Model Bye-laws and the same is to be found in bye-law 169(a), which reads thus: 169. Letting out common spaces The Society shall not let out or give on leave and licence basis or permit and/ subletting, any open space available under the Staircases, Terraces/Open ground/ Lawns/Club house/Common Hall etc. or to any person whether the member of the Society or not, for any purpose whatsoever. Penalties for encroachment of common spaces.
Even if it is assumed arguendo that bye-law 169(a) applies to Respondent No.3-Society or there is any other provision in the existing bye-law, which empowers third Respondent Society to levy penalties for unauthorised encroachment, I find the action of Respondent No.3 Society in penalizing the Petitioner with excessive penalty of Rs. 15 odd lakhs over the trifle issue of parking of bicycle to be arbitrary. The amount of penalty is over Rs. 15 lakhs because the society has levied the same retrospectively form 11 years in the past.
There is nothing on record to indicate that during 2011 to 2020, the society ever objected for parking of the bicycle by the Petitioners. All of sudden, the Society addressed letter dated 13 August 2021 to the Petitioners asking them to show cause as to why penalty for encroachment should not be charged and collected against them for parking the bicycle between first and second floors for 11 years.
Otherwise, it appears quite ludicrous for the Society to seek to recover astronomical amount of Rs.15,45,730/- for mere parking of bicycle in the staircase. Since the demand itself is preposterous and defies logic, this Court inquired with the Petitioners as to what is the cost of the bicycle and the answer is Rs. 11,000. Thus, for parking of the bicycle worth Rs. 11,000/- fine of Rs.15,45,730 is sought to be recovered. The observations are not for encouraging activities by members in encroaching upon common spaces, but the housing societies also need to act with some reasonableness, and the managing committees cannot assume the role of super-regulatory authorities over their fellow members by raising absurd demands.
ye-law 169(a) is incorporated in the new bye-law for discouraging the society members from unauthorisedly encroaching upon common areas of the Society. In the event of violation of bye-law 169(a), drastic measure of charging five times monthly maintenance charges per month with retrospective effect for the period of encroachment has been incorporated. Therefore, when the Society decides to levy penalty under Bye-law 169(a) it must act with necessary alacrity so that the member is made aware of the fact that he/she would be required to pay hefty penalty equal to five times monthly maintenance charges and he can take necessary corrective action. Bye law 169(a) cannot be misused by the Society for retrospectively levying penalty for 11 long years for the trifle act of parking of bicycle. What is done by Respondent No.3-Society is an egregious act, which amount to arbitrary exercise of power.
