Maharashtra Court Orders Repairs in Long‑Standing Water Leakage Dispute

Background of the Dispute

The conflict began in July 2012 when the owner of a ground‑floor apartment in a Mumbai housing society began to experience persistent water leakage from the flat above. The upper‑floor unit had been owned by a different individual before it was sold in September 2014. The ground‑floor resident claimed that the former owner had carried out extensive civil work on the bathroom floor tiles, which was allegedly the source of the leak. Despite notifying the society, no remedial action was taken.

Attempts at Repair and Rising Costs

In May 2016, the society arranged a repair at a cost of Rs 4,500, which the ground‑floor owner agreed to pay in full. The fix worked for a time, but by 2018 the leakage had returned. The resident hired a contractor and spent Rs 36,750 on a second repair that involved entering the upstairs flat. This too was only a temporary solution.

• First repair (2016): Rs 4,500
• Second repair (2018): Rs 36,750

After the second attempt, the new owner of the upper flat refused further entry for repair work. He argued that the 2018 intervention had damaged his floor tiles and caused financial loss, and that allowing workers in could disturb the privacy of elderly residents and a minor child.

Legal Escalation

The disagreement escalated into a legal battle that lasted eight years. The ground‑floor resident brought the case before the Maharashtra Co‑operative Appellate Court on 4 September 2026, seeking relief to permit necessary repairs.

Judicial Decision

The court found that leaving the problem unresolved could lead to additional damage and loss. While acknowledging the upstairs owner’s privacy concerns, the court ordered that:

• The first‑floor flat owner must allow repair work to proceed.
• Costs for the repair would be shared equally between the two parties, in line with a resolution passed at the society’s AGM.

The decision also referenced Bye‑law No.159(a), which mandates members to cooperate for essential repairs, and cited a society resolution that explicitly states that water‑leakage costs are to be borne jointly.

Role of an Independent Engineer

To address the upstairs owner’s objections, the court appointed an independent engineer selected from a list provided by him. The engineer inspected both flats and reported that a leak existed in the ground‑floor unit, though the precise origin could not be pinpointed. This report reinforced the court’s view that the leakage likely emanated from the upper flat.

Society Bylaws and the Binding Resolution

According to Bye‑law No.159(a) of the society, any member who fails to cooperate on necessary repairs can be compelled by the society’s executive committee to do so. The AGM resolution, passed in 2017, further clarified that if water leaks between units, the owners of the affected flats are to share the repair cost equally. The court treated both documents as enforceable, stating that they form an integral part of the society’s governing framework.

Legal Arguments Presented

During the proceedings, the ground‑floor resident argued that the upper flat owner’s refusal to allow repair work was a deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility for damage caused by the 2018 repair. He also highlighted that continuous leakage had already led to damp patches on walls and a gradual deterioration of flooring, which could potentially reduce the resale value of the property.

The upstairs owner countered that the 2018 repair had caused structural damage to his tiles and that any further entry would jeopardise the safety of elderly residents and a minor child living in the flat. He insisted on an independent structural audit before any work could be carried out.

Comments from the Advocate

Advocate Sana Raees Khan, who represented the ground‑floor owner, said: 'The court’s decision reflects the need for a balanced approach. While privacy and safety are important, an unresolved leak can cause irreversible damage and financial loss. The independent engineer’s report corroborated the court’s view that the source of the leak is most likely in the upper flat.'

Financial Impact of the Delay

Experts suggest that prolonged water leakage can increase a property’s maintenance costs by up to 15% annually. In this case, the ground‑floor resident estimated that the cumulative damage to walls, flooring, and electrical fittings could amount to a significant sum, though the exact figure remains uncertain.

Future Prevention Measures

The society has pledged to conduct regular inspections of all flats, particularly those with a history of plumbing issues. It also plans to update its bylaws to include mandatory waterproofing checks during any renovation work in shared walls.

• Annual inspections of all flats for water damage.
• Mandatory waterproofing checks during renovations.
• Clear reporting procedures for residents to file complaints within 30 days.

Conclusion

After eight years of contention, the Maharashtra Co‑operative Appellate Court has forced the upstairs flat owner to permit repairs and to share the cost with the ground‑floor resident. The order underscores the judiciary’s willingness to enforce society bylaws and protect residents from continued water damage.