Written By: Deepika Sethia
When a housing society exceeds its authority, it rarely issues explicit declarations of harassment.
Ritika had recently moved into her apartment in Noida when the first incident took place. Her parents had come to stay with her for a few days. At the gate, the security guard stopped them and stated that entry would only be permitted after “committee approval.” Ritika had never received any official notice regarding such a regulation. There was no documentation to substantiate this rule. Nevertheless, her parents were required to wait outside while the security guard and the society office conducted atelephone exchange.
In another instance, Sandeep, who owned an apartment in Mumbai, leased his flat to a young couple employed locally. Within a few weeks, he began receiving correspondence from the society committee indicating that “families are preferred” and that tenants “cause issues.” The tenants had committed no misconduct. Rent was paid punctually. Nonetheless, the pressure persisted until the couple contemplated vacating the premises.
These situations typically do not seem serious in isolation. They manifest through informal instructions, verbal objections, and arbitrary restrictions. However, over time, they cultivate a more troubling perception that a housing society can dictate how an individual resides within their own home.
Such authority is not sanctioned by law.A housing society exists to administer and maintain common facilities. Its powers are administrative, not absolute. Most societies operate under state Cooperative Societies laws and registered bye-laws, which allow committees to regulate maintenance, security, and common areas. They do not authorise committees to interfere with ownership rights, lawful occupation, or private living arrangements beyond what the law permits.
At the most basic level, the right to occupy and enjoy property is legally protected. Article 300A [1]of the Constitution of India provides that no person can be deprived of property except by authority of law. Courts have repeatedly held that interference with the lawful enjoyment of property cannot arise from informal decisions or unwritten practices.
The same principle extends to tenants. Under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,[2] a tenant lawfully inducted into premises is entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the property during the subsistence of the tenancy. A society committee cannot override that right merely because it prefers owners over tenants.
This is precisely where many committees cross the line.
A society may certainly introduce reasonable security measures. It may require visitor entries, identification details, or prior intimation in specific circumstances. But there is a difference between regulation and control. A guest cannot be denied entry because a committee informally disapproves. A tenant cannot be pressured to vacate because the committee dislikes rented occupancy. A domestic worker cannot suddenly be refused access because someone verbally decided to “tighten rules.”
None of these actions becomes lawful merely because they are enforced repeatedly.What makes these situations challenging is the way authority operates within residential communities. Instructions are frequently conveyed through security personnel or administrative staff. Residents are informed that “this is how society operates.” The majority comply to avoid daily conflicts in their living environment.
Such hesitation is understandable. However, legally, the powers of a committee are confined to what is explicitly permitted by law and the registered bye-laws.
The initial and most pragmatic step in these circumstances is straightforward: request the rule in writing. This request should not be for an explanation or verbal justification, but for the actual bye-law or resolution being invoked.
This approach immediately shifts the nature of the discourse. If the restriction genuinely exists within the society’s framework, it becomes subject to scrutiny. Conversely, if it does not, the deficiency becomes apparent very promptly. Many disputes are resolved at this point, as arbitrary instructions seldom withstand scrutiny once documentation is sought.
Should the issue persist, it need not be confined solely to informal exchanges within the premises. Formal complaints can be addressed to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies or the relevant governing authority. Courts have also intervened where societies have overstepped their legal powers, particularly in cases involving tenants, arbitrary entry restrictions, and interference with property rights.
Simultaneously, residents bear responsibilities. Valid security protocols must be adhered to. Common areas should be used responsibly. By-laws that are lawful and properly framed are binding. Issues only arise when committees extend beyond administrative functions into personal control.
Ritika’s situation changed immediately when she requested the society office to provide the rule under which her parents had been barred. No such rule existed. The entry was permitted shortly thereafter. Sandeep’s issue was resolved when he responded formally, emphasising that a valid tenancy agreement could not be overridden simply because the committee preferred otherwise.
In both instances, no dramatic outcomes occurred. The matter corrected itself once the dialogue shifted from informal authority to legal basis.
This delineates the fundamental difference.Parchai operates within this sphere, where residents are uncertain whether their concerns are merely inconvenient or genuinely unlawful. It facilitates the examination of whether the committee’s actions are supported by legal provisions and aids in framing responses that are clear, well-founded, and difficult to dismiss. When necessary, it also assists residents in advancing their concerns through structured avenues, preventing a manageable issue from escalating into prolonged conflict.
A housing society is intended to facilitate collective living, not diminish it.While a committee may establish rules for the building, it does not possess the authority to define the terms of residents’ living arrangements.
[1]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120077007/
[2]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1879190/