A housing society cannot force a flat owner to vacate or sell the property merely because its general body passed a majority resolution. Even in Maharashtra, where the law allows a cooperative society to expel a member in specified circumstances, expulsion from membership and eviction from the flat are legally separate matters, experts said.

The issue has come into focus after a recent Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Court ruling, in which a housing society's attempt to evict a resident over alleged nuisance and disturbance was rejected. The ruling underlined that a society cannot treat its internal resolution as an eviction order.

For homeowners, the distinction matters because a society’s disciplinary powers do not automatically give it control over the ownership or possession of a flat.

Three-fourths majority does not mean automatic eviction

Under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, a society can initiate expulsion proceedings against a member in specified circumstances. However, the process involves safeguards.

Sneha Agicha, advocate, D. M. Harish & Co., Advocates, said the provision requires a resolution passed by at least three-fourths of members entitled to vote and present at the relevant general meeting. The member must also be given an opportunity to put forward their case, and the expulsion requires the Registrar's approval.

“The expression 'three-fourths majority’ should not be understood as giving the society an unrestricted power to remove a person from his property,” Agicha said.

The process therefore has three distinct stages: Disciplinary action for a violation, possible expulsion from membership and, separately, any legal proceedings required for eviction or recovery of possession.

Grahita Agarwal, senior associate, B Shanker Advocates LLP, said a society’s resolution, even if passed by a substantial majority, cannot by itself divest an owner of proprietary or possessory rights.

Membership and ownership are not the same

This is the central point for flat owners. Membership of a cooperative housing society is a statutory relationship, while ownership of a flat is a property right.

"Expulsion from membership does not, per se, terminate the member's title or confer upon the society a right to dispossess the owner," Agarwal said.

Vipul Jai, partner at PSL Advocates & Solicitors, said Article 300A of the Constitution protects the right to property and provides that no person can be deprived of property except by authority of law.

"Accordingly, a society's internal resolution cannot, by itself, deprive a person of his property by executive fiat," Jai said.

This means a society cannot simply tell an owner that they must sell their flat because three-fourths of residents have voted against them. A majority resolution does not create a power of compulsory sale or transfer of title.

There can be specific exceptions, such as redevelopment, where dissenting members may be required to vacate if the applicable law, bye-laws and prescribed safeguards are satisfied. But that is different from a society unilaterally forcing a sale or eviction through a general body resolution, Jai said.

What if the owner is a nuisance or defaults on dues?

A society is not powerless when a resident repeatedly violates its bye-laws, causes nuisance, carries out unauthorised commercial activity or defaults on legitimate dues.

It can enforce applicable bye-laws and initiate proceedings through the mechanisms provided under the relevant co-operative law. However, it cannot resort to physical eviction or other forms of self-help.

Tvisha Desai, principal associate, The Fort Circle, said expulsion proceedings under the Maharashtra law require, among other safeguards, a minimum one-month notice, an opportunity for the member to be heard and the prescribed three-fourths majority. The resolution must then be sent to the Registrar.

"Expulsion from membership and ownership of the flat are distinct legal rights," Desai said.

The consequences can also depend on how the flat is held and the applicable state law and bye-laws. Therefore, an owner should not assume that every dispute with a society has the same legal outcome.

Can the society evict a tenant?

The same principle broadly applies when the dispute involves a tenant. A society may enforce rules relating to occupation, nuisance, security, common areas and unlawful activity, but it ordinarily cannot terminate a tenancy or physically remove a tenant through its own resolution.

Tusi Kumar, partner, Singhania & Co., said a society cannot convert an internal resolution into a self-executing eviction order. If there is an immediate threat of forcible dispossession, the owner or occupant can seek an injunction and other appropriate relief from the competent forum.

The owner can also face consequences if the tenant breaches society rules, depending on the tenancy agreement and the applicable bye-laws. This makes it important for landlords to clearly communicate society rules to tenants.

What can a flat owner do if the society threatens eviction?

If a society threatens to remove an owner, force a sale or disconnect essential services, experts said the owner should avoid confrontation and document the notices, resolutions and communications.

The available remedies can include:

• Challenging an unlawful society resolution or expulsion before the appropriate statutory forum.
• Seeking an injunction against forcible dispossession or interference with peaceful possession.
• Approaching the competent co-operative or civil forum, depending on the nature of the dispute.
• Seeking restoration of essential services if water or electricity is disconnected as a coercive measure.
• Approaching the police where office-bearers resort to threats, intimidation, forcible entry or other unlawful conduct.

Tushar Kumar, advocate, Supreme Court of India, said a society is "a creature of statute" and must operate within the powers given to it by law.

"If possession is sought, the society must invoke the remedy known to law and establish its entitlement before the competent forum," he said.

A majority vote can have consequences within the functioning of a housing society, but it does not, by itself, turn the society into an authority that can take someone's property or forcibly remove them from their home.