TL;DR: Our Mumbai cooperative housing society installed a temporary monsoon shed outside our ground-floor flat in 2024, acknowledging the need. In 2025 and 2026 it refused to provide the same protection, allegedly prevented us from installing one at our own expense, had our privately funded shed dismantled, yet still charged us ₹5,000 for work never done. Meanwhile, it approved about ₹1.2 lakh for temporary monsoon protection serving the fifth-floor flats. After approaching the society, Registrar and police, what legal remedy remains?
My family has spent years trying to resolve this through every available channel.
My mother is the owner and original member of the only ground-floor flat (Flat No. 10) in our Mumbai cooperative housing society, and I am the Associate Member.
This is not about demanding special treatment or society funds. We only seek equal treatment.
Our building has two areas severely affected during the monsoon: the fifth-floor terrace, exposed to direct rainfall, and our ground-floor flat, where rainwater enters through the entrance and exterior walls.
We have never opposed protection for the fifth floor. Our question is simple: if one vulnerable part of the building deserves temporary protection, why not the other?
2024 – The society acknowledged the problem
After repeated written requests, the society installed a temporary 7.5-foot monsoon shed outside our flat.
It successfully prevented rainwater from entering, demonstrating that the society itself considered such protection necessary.
2025 – Protection refused
At a Special General Body Meeting in May 2025, the society resolved that only a 2.5-foot shed would be permitted outside our flat.
I objected because such a shed would not prevent rainwater ingress and specifically requested that my objection be recorded in the minutes. It was not.
Although the resolution was passed, the society never constructed even the approved 2.5-foot shed.
Despite repeated letters, emails, WhatsApp messages, phone calls and meetings, no action was taken.
When we contacted the contractor who normally installs the society's monsoon sheds, he informed us that he had been instructed by the Chairman and Secretary not to carry out our work.
We paid ourselves
As the monsoon had already begun, we informed the society in writing that we would install a temporary shed entirely at our own expense.
We spent about ₹6,500, sought no reimbursement and installed a shed smaller than the one provided by the society in 2024.
Soon afterwards, the contractor arrived and instructed the labourers to dismantle it. Despite our objections, the shed was removed.
The contractor told us he feared payment for the terrace work would be withheld if he did not remove it.
As a result, we paid to construct the shed, paid for it to be dismantled and still received no protection.
Charged for work never done
Although the society never installed our shed, ₹5,000 was added to our maintenance bill towards monsoon shed charges.
We immediately disputed the charge and have not paid that amount.
2026 – Different treatment
In 2026, the society approved approximately ₹1.2 lakh for temporary monsoon protection on the terrace serving the fifth-floor flats.
When we again requested protection for our ground-floor flat, we were simply told that the matter was "not part of the agenda."
Harassment and selective treatment
During the SGBM on 12 May 2025, the Chairman and Secretary allegedly used abusive and threatening language towards me, my wife and my mother, including:
"Tu yahan se nikal abhi ke abhi."
"Main tujhe Associate Member se abhi nikal dunga."
"Main jo bolunga yaha wahi hoga."
I was also publicly told that, because I was only an Associate Member, my words had no value.
Two days later, my wife filed a Non-Cognizable (NC) complaint with the police.
At another meeting, the Chairman and Secretary attempted to prevent me from attending by claiming I was "not a member of the building." However, other non-members were allowed to remain. Only our family was asked to leave.
June 2026
As our flat remained exposed, we again installed a temporary shed at our own expense.
The society then issued a letter calling it an encroachment and warning that we could be fined up to five times our monthly maintenance while it remained.
This was difficult to understand because the same society had previously installed a temporary shed outside our flat while continuing extensive temporary monsoon protection on the terrace.
Other concerns
Over the years we have observed what we believe are procedural irregularities:
-Objections omitted from meeting minutes.
-Matters recorded despite not being discussed.
-Meeting recordings repeatedly requested but never provided.
-Requests for society records covering the previous five years left unanswered.
Steps already taken
We have:
-Submitted numerous written applications.
-Sent emails and WhatsApp messages.
-Attended meetings.
-Approached the Managing Committee repeatedly.
-Filed complaints before the Registrar.
-Filed a Police NC.
-Requested corrections to inaccurate minutes.
-Requested society records and meeting recordings.
-Preserved documentary evidence including letters, emails, photographs, bills, minutes and official complaints.
My question
This is no longer only about a temporary shed.
Can a cooperative housing society selectively apply its rules depending on which resident is affected?
If temporary monsoon protection is acceptable for one part of the building, why is it treated as an encroachment only when our family installs it at our own expense?
If the society acknowledged the need in 2024, why refuse similar protection later? Why charge us for work that was never carried out?
After exhausting internal remedies, approaching the Registrar and filing a police complaint, what legal remedy remains under Maharashtra cooperative housing law?