Archive · 9 Oct 2026
Bombay High Court Limits Developer’s Society Membership to Sanctioned Basement
A housing society challenged the membership of a developer that owned part of its basement.
The Bombay High Court said the basement’s status must be decided using the approved building plan and the facts of the case.
That plan allowed 59.02 square metres of the basement to be used for storage.
The court upheld the developer’s membership only for that area.
It noted that the society had accepted the membership in 2009 but challenged it in 2018.
The court also said the society had given membership to people living on unauthorised sixth and seventh floors.
It called this an inconsistent approach.
The decision does not allow developers to sell common areas.
The court rejected the society’s request to pause the order.
The Bombay High Court upheld Gehlot Development Services Pvt. Ltd.’s membership in ALJ Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
The membership is limited to 59.02 sq m sanctioned as storage in the original building plan.
The court said basement status depends on the sanctioned plan and the facts of each case.
It cited the society’s acceptance of the membership in 2009 and its challenge only in 2018.
The court criticized the society for granting membership to occupants of unauthorised upper floors while opposing the developer’s membership.
- Who
- The Bombay High Court, ALJ Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., and Gehlot Development Services Pvt. Ltd.
- What
- The court upheld the developer’s membership but limited it to 59.02 sq m of sanctioned basement storage.
- When
- The judgment was delivered on October 7, 2026; the article is dated October 8, 2026.
- Where
- ALJ Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. on Pali Mala Road, Bandra, Mumbai.
- Why
- The court found that the society’s blanket objection was inconsistent with its treatment of occupants of unauthorised sixth and seventh floors.
Society’s position
Court’s findings
Basement membership
Society’s position
The society argued that the basement was a common amenity and could not be treated as independent premises for membership.
Court’s findings
The court rejected a blanket rule, saying the basement’s status depends on the sanctioned plan and facts; it upheld membership for the 59.02 sq m sanctioned as storage.
Consistent treatment of occupants
Society’s position
The society challenged the developer’s membership, arguing that the basement did not consume FSI and therefore could not qualify for membership.
Court’s findings
The court noted that occupants of unauthorised sixth and seventh floors had received membership and called the society’s different treatment a double standard.
Redevelopment benefits
Society’s position
The society opposed the developer’s membership and argued that the basement was a common amenity.
Court’s findings
The court directed that the upheld 59.02 sq m be treated as residential space when determining redevelopment benefits, while clarifying that the ruling did not encourage the sale of common amenities.
- Judgment date
- October 7, 2026
- Judge
- Justice Sandeep Marne
- Membership holder
- Gehlot Development Services Pvt. Ltd.
- Society
- ALJ Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
- Basement in sanctioned plan
- 230.30 sq m total: 59.02 sq m sanctioned as storage and the remainder as parking
- Membership area upheld
- 59.02 sq m
- Earlier membership and challenge
- Membership was granted in 2009; the society challenged it in 2018.
- 2019 amendment
- The court held that the amendment restricting membership for premises that are neither flats nor common amenities could not apply retrospectively.