Mr Gupta, who lives in Mira Road (East), Thane, owned two units on the ground floor and had a problem with water leaking from his ceiling. In March 2022, he reached out to Dr. Fixit Institute for structural protection & rehabilitation. The team assessed the situation and told Gupta that there was severe leakage and damage to his ceiling caused by the water seeping from the concealed plumbing lines of the bathroom in the 1st floor flat owned by Ms Srivastav.

Dr Fixit’s team quoted Rs 10,000 to Gupta for the necessary repairs. Additionally, Gupta brought on M/s. Mithilesh Water Proofing Co. to inspect his units and get an estimated repair cost.

Gupta showed the Infrared Thermographic Survey Report prepared by Dr. Fixit and requested Ms Srivastav to make the necessary repairs in her bathroom. Unfortunately, she ignored his request and failed to carry out the necessary repairs. Thus water continued to damage Gupta’s units, preventing him from renting them out.

Also read: Homebuyer finds water leakages and seepage issues weeks after buying flat; Telangana RERA orders builder to relay terrace flooring, carry out waterproofing work

Gupta next wrote a letter to the secretary/chairman of the housing society requesting them to resolve the leakage issue. However, the society didn’t take any action after receiving his letter and neglected to resolve the leakage issue. Feeling frustrated, Gupta filed various complaints with the police and the Deputy Registrar.

Eventually, Gupta decided to send a legal notice to the housing society on August 4, 2024 and filed a court case as well.

Gupta argued that he regularly paid maintenance to the society and couldn’t be made to suffer this huge monetary loss caused by Ms Srivastav’s failure to repair her bathroom.

On July 4, 2026, the Maharashtra Co-Operative Appellate Court rejected Gupta’s appeal (CNR No.CA010001502025) and ruled that a housing society can’t be made responsible for repairs in individual flats.

Also read: Faulty terrace repairs flooded two flats; Maharashtra court awards senior citizen Rs 3.96 lakh compensation

Keep reading to know why Gupta lost the case.

A summary of the judgement is as follows:

The court observed that a housing society is a corporate body and has no responsibility towards the leakage, seepage and repairing of individual flats in the building.

The court said that the responsibility of the society was limited to the maintenance of its building and the common spaces and hence, the society couldn’t be held liable for any seepage, leakage and damage caused to Gupta’s units.

The court said that Gupta can carry out the repairs or renovation of his own shop and at the most can recover the amount from Ms Srivastav, if on merits, it is proved that damage to his units was caused due to the leakage of her flat’s washroom.

At this interim stage, such a mandatory temporary injunction cannot be granted, said the court.

Thus the court rejected Gupta’s appeal.