HC raps co-op dept for not recovering maintenance dues from Rizvi Chambers’ developer

The dispute arose after the Rizvi Chambers cooperative housing society obtained a recovery certificate from the cooperative department, against the building’s developer for failing to pay maintenance dues

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has rapped authorities in the state cooperative department for not recovering maintenance dues from the developer of Rizvi Chambers, a well-known housing complex in the western suburbs, despite a recovery order being in force.

(Shutterstock)

The dispute arose after the Rizvi Chambers cooperative housing society obtained a recovery certificate from the cooperative department, against the building’s developer for failing to pay maintenance dues. When officials began proceedings to recover the dues by attaching the developer’s property, they contested the move.

The developer claimed that as per project approval conditions, certain parts of the premises had already been handed over to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), and they should not be held liable for paying maintenance for those portions.

On August 24, 2023, the special recovery officer of the cooperative department dismissed the developer’s objection, holding that such claims did not fall within his powers while executing a recovery certificate. But after a revisional authority set aside this order in November 2024 and sent the matter back, the officer altered his position. On February 28, 2025, he passed a fresh order accepting the developer’s objection and directed the society to approach a cooperative tribunal to establish its rights, saying ownership of the property was under a cloud.

The housing society then approached the high court, claiming authorities in the cooperative department had acted illegally. The law clearly requires any developer or member against whom a recovery order is issued to deposit the dues before filing an appeal, the society said in its plea. In their case, though the developer had not deposited the dues, their appeal was entertained.

Justice Amit Borkar agreed with the society’s argument and stressed that the pre-deposit rule was not a mere formality but a safeguard against frivolous appeals.

“No revision can be entertained unless the statutory pre-deposit is made,” the court said, criticising the special recovery officer for overstepping his role. His job, the judge said, was to enforce the recovery order, not reopen questions about who owned the property.

“The scope of enquiry under Rule 107 (19) is limited only to objections touching the execution of a recovery certificate. It does not extend to deciding disputes of civil title or property ownership,” justice Borkar said.

By asking the housing society to prove ownership before another forum, the special recovery officer had wrongly diverted the proceedings, the court held, and quashed both the earlier orders. The developer could pursue separate legal remedies, but he cannot block recovery proceedings on grounds raised before the cooperative department, the court clarified.