Visit our parent website: www.redevelopmentofhousingsocieties.com



Follow me on

        

        




TDR ON PRIVATE & INTERNAL ROADS 

There’s good news for redevelopment projects located along internal private roads across the suburbs as the Urban Development Department (UDD) of State Government has finally clarified that Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) can be now be issued on both private and internal roads with a width of 9 meters after the BMC delayed issuing TDR for such projects. The hindrance came after the State Government announced a new TDR policy in 2016.  

As we are aware that due to new TDR policy, redevelopment projects located along internal private roads in private layouts across the suburbs were stalled because the BMC had stopped issuing/loading of TDR under new TDR policy for such projects as a result of which, an estimated 500 housing society redevelopment projects were affected for the last few weeks in certain western and eastern suburbs.

The TDR was being issued only for municipal roads, public roads, pre-merger layout roads and road alignments marked by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). Most housing societies that were contemplating redevelopment located in Chembur, Ghatkopar, Santacruz, Khar and Juhu, where TDR was not given to such redevelopment projects abutting internal roads and right of ways.

The impediment was the State's new TDR policy introduced last year which did not permit TDR to be loaded on redevelopment projects on internal roads not owned by the BMC. Hence, the BMC refused to allot additional construction permissions in the form of TDR to complete the said projects.

The move of State Government will benefit close to 500 housing societies up for redevelopment which were affected by the earlier decision of barring the issuance of TDR for internal private roads in private layouts. This has now clarified that any private or municipal roads and roads with a width of 9 mtrs can now avail TDR benefits.

TDR is generated and raised under Regulation 34 of the Development Control Rules (DCR). The rule states that a BMC road with a width of 9 mtrs and abutting any structure is issued a TDR. The Developer can use the TDR elsewhere in the city. It is further clarified by UDD that the rule is likely to be further relaxed to 6 mtrs to ease redevelopment of those buildings on BMC roads having width of less than 9 mtrs. A notification in this regard is awaited.

*******************************

MEMBER IN HOUSING SOCIETY CANNOT MERGE FLATS WITHOUT BMC PERMISSION

There are numerous examples of resident members in Housing Societies who buy luxurious flats either in new buildings or redeveloped ones which are adjoining ones and for their habitable convenience, merge them in to one flat or if the flats are situated on lower and immediate upper floor, merge them in to a duplex flat by construction in-house stairway connecting both the flats. While the resident members enjoying their stay thereafter never knew that Section 347-C of BMC Act, 1988 prohibits them for such merger without the authority’s prior permission.

Recently such case has been on record that Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Vile Parle, held a Dahisar resident guilty of merging two flats without procuring the BMC permission. The accused was fined by the Court a sum of Rs.10,000/ for violation of rules. The offence of the said accused came to light through the information sought under RTI that no permission was granted by BMC for the amalgamation of flats, ruled the Metropolitan Magistrate of Vile Parle Court.

The accused admitted that he had indeed merged two flats in May 2010 before receiving the Occupation Certificate (OC). However, he agreed having paid the fine amount and rectified the changes made as he did not want his family to suffer. Section 347(c) of the BMC Act envisages that no alteration can be made to a residential building or plans which have been approved by the BMC. Once the plans are sanctioned and flats are built, any change including setting up a partition, demolishing walls, merging flats or using a residential apartment flat as a warehouse, require the permission of the Civic Chief, according to the lawyers. The text of relevant Section is appended herein:

Section 347-C: No alterations to be made in buildings for human habitation without written permission of Commissioner. "No person shall without the written permission of the BMC Commissioner or otherwise than in conformity with the terms of such permission make any alteration or cause any alteration to be made in an existing building originally constructed for or authorised to be used for human habitation for the purpose of using it or causing human It to be used as a godown warehouse, workshop, workplace, factory, stable or motor garage".

The next door neighbour of accused lodged a complaint with the BMC and also stated that the accused had built a door to connect the drawing rooms of the two flats. Further, without the BMC's prior permission, a bathroom in one of these two flats was turned into a kitchen. However, it was reported that while BMC delayed initiating action against the accused, his neighbour filed a query under the RTI Act which motivated the Corporation to issue a notice to the accused. The BMC lodged a case before the Metropolitan Magistrate when the accused failed to comply with the notice to restore the flats to its original condition.

As per Section 342 of BMC Act, 1988 (amended till date), the following “tenantable repairs”, can be carried out without obtaining permission from the ‘Building and Factory’ Department of local BMC Ward:

• Plastering, painting, pointing of your flat

• Providing guniting to the structural members or walls

• Changing floor tiles

• Repairing WC, bath or washing places

• Repairing or replacing drainage pipes, taps, manholes and other fittings

• Repairing or replacing sanitary, water plumbing or electrical fittings

• Replacing the roof with the same material

• Replacement of existing water-proofing material of the terrace. The only pre-conditions to the renovation work to be done at residences are:

• The original tenantable structure (whether rental or ownership) must be legal, i.e. it is based on the original BMC-approved Building plan.

• Though no BMC permission for the above is required, it is advisable to do so under strict supervision of a registered Architect and/or Structural Engineer.The "tenantable repairs" however shall NOT include the following:

• Replacing or removal of any structure members of load bearing walls.

• Change in horizontal or vertical existing dimensions of the structure.

• Lowering of plinth, foundations or floors.

• Addition or extension of mezzanine floor or loft.

• Flattening of roof or repairing roof with different material

• No merger of tenancies by removal or opening of any walls in between two or more tenancies.

• Changing location of bathroom/WC/kitchen sink, in a way that can cause leakage to residents below.

• Increasing the internal height of the structure.

BMC Notices

Notice issued by BMC under Section 354 is a STOP Work Notice if it feels ongoing work is unlawful. If there is unauthorised construction then BMC can issue a Show-Cause Notice under Section 351. This is NOT a Stop Work Notice – it is issued when work is completed and persons are utilizing the said premises. If the officer is not satisfied with the documents produced, then he has to give them an opportunity to revert the property back to the original legal status after which, the BMC can initiate demolition under Section 488. The party can go to the Civil Court for a stay. Notice under Section 381 is issued by BMC if there is nuisance to other members due to some work done by the resident. For any construction to be legalized; there must be documentary proof (electric bill or property assessment etc.) that the structure existed prior to 1962.

Before starting renovation work on your property, if you are in doubt, it may be safe to take ‘dated’ pictures of the property. However, if you submit a letter to the local BMC office, attaching a copy of the Architect’s proposed plan, you may be requested to forward the same to Building Proposal Department of your Local Municipal Ward for written approval.

**********

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ON HOUSING SOCIETY CAN ALLOT ONLY ONE CAR PARKING SPACE TO EACH MEMBER

The Suburban District Consumer Forum while dismissing complaint of one of the members residing at Dheeraj Enclave Tower at Borivli (East) has recently ruled that a Co-operative Housing Society is not bound to provide more than one parking space to a member. The member had chal¬lenged a penalty which was levied on him by the Society for park¬ing his two more cars in addition to the one for which parking space had been provided.

The said member was allotted only one car parking space in the Society’s premises. It is reported that he purchased a second car in the year 2011 and a third car, a year later. For parking of both these additional cars, the Society charged the said member Rs.500/- as penalty since no approval was accorded by the Society to park his additional cars.

The Dheeraj Enclave Tower Society, on August 2nd 2014, passed a resolu¬tion and enhanced the penalty from Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/- and also asked all its members who owned more than one car, to park the additional cars out¬side the Society premises from August 31st 2014.

While disobeying the directives of the Society, the delinquent member did not move his two additional cars outside the Society. Hence, the Society levied penalty at the rate of Rs.500/- per car per day.

The member then approached the Suburban District Consumer Forum, seeking the cancella¬tion of extra parking charges and penalty. The Forum rejected the complaint noting that in compliance of rules the Co-operative Housing Society has provided parking space for one car of the complain¬ant and it is not bound to pro¬vide parking spaces for more than one vehicle for its mem¬bers.

The Forum said that the complainant was using the premises of the Society for parking his additional vehi¬cles without the permission of the Society and therefore, the penalty was levied.

While dismissing the complaint, the Forum observed that the dispute appears to be about the penalty imposed by the Housing Soci¬ety on the complain¬ant and not about providing any service by the Society and therefore, the dis¬pute does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The ruling of the Forum is given hereunder:

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MUMBAI SUBURBAN DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATIVE BLDG,
NEAR DR.BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR GARDEN,
BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051
Complaint Case No. CC/278/2015

MR. VIJAY PANDIT
Flat no. 302, tower 1a, Dheeraj
Enclave, opp. Bhor Industries, Off
Western Express Highway, Borivali
East, Mumbai - 400 066 ...........Complainant (s)

Versus

DHEERAJ ENCLAVE TOWER CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY

Through its Hon’ble Chairman
Secretary, Regd. No. MUM/WR/HSG/
TC/11715/2002/2003/2002 Opp.
Bhor Industries, Off Western Express
Highway Borivali East, Mumbai - 400066
............Opp. Party

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. A.Z.TELGOTE PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. KIRTI KULKARNI MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. S.R.SANAP MEMBER

For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:

ORDER dated 16/09/2015
आदेश - मा. श्रीमती. किर्ती कुलकर्णी, सदस्या.- ठिकाणः बांद्रा (पूर्व), मुंबई
निशाणी 1 वर आदेश

1. मंचाकडून तक्रारीचे व सोबत दाखल केलेल्या कागदपत्रांचे वाचन करण्यात आले.

2. तक्रारदाराची तक्रार थोडक्यात अशी आहे की, तक्रारदार हे सामनेवाले गृहनिर्माण सोसायटीचे सभासद आहेत. तक्रारदाराकडे पूर्वी 2005 मध्ये एक कार होती व नंतर त्यांनी सन 2011 मध्ये दुसरी कार खरेदी केली. सामनेवाले यांनी तक्रारदाराला त्यांच्या कारसाठी पार्कींगची जागा उपलब्ध करून दिली होती व दुस- या कारसाठी रू.500/-,चॉर्ज केले होते. तक्रारदाराने नंतर सन 2012 साली तिसरी कार खरेदी केली. सामनेवाले सोसायटीने सभासदांच्या दुस-या कारसाठी चॉर्ज केलेल्या रू. 500/-,मध्ये वाढ करून त्याऐवजी रू.2,000/-,चॉर्ज करण्याचे ठरविले व तसा ठराव दि. 02/08/2014 रोजी मंजूर केला. सामनेवाले यांनी तक्रारदाराला व दोन वाहनाचे मालक असलेल्या इतर सभासदाला त्यांचे दुसरे वाहन इतरत्र पार्क करण्यास सांगून दि.31/08/2014 पूर्वी तिथून हलविण्यास सांगीतले मात्र तक्रारदारानी त्यांचे दुसरे व तिसरे वाहन पार्कीगच्या जागेमधून हटविले नाही व त्यामुळे सामनेवाले यांनी दि. 01/09/2014 बिलात दुस-या व तिस-या कारच्या पार्कींगपोटी प्रत्येकी प्रतिदिन रू.1,000/-,या दराने दंड आकारला व तक्रारदाराला त्यानूसार पुढील बिल देण्यात आले व त्यावर नाराज होऊन तक्रारदाराने प्रस्तुतची तक्रार दाखल केली. सामनेवाले यांनी बसविलेले पार्कींग चॉर्जेस व पार्कीग पेनॉलटी नियमीत करण्यात यावी अशी विनंती तक्रारदाराने प्रस्तुत तक्रारीत केली.

3. तक्रारदाराचा दाखलपूर्व युक्तीवाद ऐकण्यात आला व अभिलेखावर उपलब्ध असलेल्या कागदपत्राचे वाचन करण्यात आले. तक्रारदार हे सामनेवाले गृहनिर्माण संस्थेचे सभासद आहेत हे त्यांनी दाखल केलेल्या शेअर सर्टिफिेकेटवरून दिसून येते. तक्रारदाराकडे आजमितीस एकुण 3 कार आहेत. सामनेवाले यांनी तक्रारदाराच्या एका कारसाठी पार्कींगची जागा अधिकृतपणे उपलब्ध करून दिली व त्यासाठी दरमहा केवळ रू.150/-,आकारले. हे तक्रारदाराच्याच कथनावरून निदर्शनास येते. मात्र, तक्रारदाराने आपले दुसरे व तिसरे वाहन देखील सोसायटीच्या कम्पांऊमध्ये पार्क केले. सोसायटीने सदर वाहनासाठी प्रत्येकी रू. 2,000/-,चॉर्ज केले व तक्रारदाराला त्यांचे दुसरे व तिसरे वाहन सदर जागेतुन हटविण्यास सांगीतले परंतू तक्रारदाराने त्यास प्रतिसाद न दिल्यामुळे सामनेवाले यांनी त्यांच्या वर दंड आकारला हे उपलब्ध कागदपत्रांवरून दिसून येते. वरील बाबी लक्षात घेता हे स्पष्ट होते की, तक्रारदार व सामनेवाले यांच्यामध्ये पार्कींगच्या जागे संदर्भात व तिचा वापर केल्याबद्दल आकारलेल्या दंडाच्या संदर्भात वाद आहे. सामनेवाले यांनी तक्रारदाराला त्यांच्या एका वाहनासाठी नियमानूसार पार्कींगची जागा उपलब्ध करूनदिली आहे व त्याबाबत उभयतामध्ये कुठलाही वाद नाही. असे असतांना तक्रारदार हे त्याच्या इतर दोन कारसाठी देखील सोसायटीची जागा सोसायटीच्या परवानगीशिवाय वापरत आहेत. उभयतामधील वाद हा सेवा पुरविण्याच्या संदर्भात असल्याचे दिसत नाही. सदरचा, वाद हा ग्रा.सं.कायदयाच्या कक्षेत येणारा नाही. कारण, सामनेवाले यांनी तक्रारदाराला नियमानूसार एका वाहनासाठी पार्कींगची जागा उपलब्ध करून देऊन योग्यप्रकारे सेवा दिली आहे. सभासदांच्या एकापेक्षा जास्त वाहनासाठी पार्कींगची जागा उपलब्ध करून देणे सोसायटीवर बंधनकारक नाही. सभासदाकडे अतिरीक्त वाहने असल्यास त्यांच्या पार्कींगच्या जागे संदर्भात शुल्क वसुल करणे ही बाब सोसायटीच्या कामकाजाशी निगडीत आहे व अशाप्रकारचा वाद ग्रा.सं.कायदयाच्या कक्षेत येत नाही. सबब, प्रस्तुतची तक्रार दाखल करून घेता येणे शक्य नाही. म्हणून मंच पुढीलप्रमाणे आदेश पारीत करीत आहे.

आदेश

1 ग्राहक क्रमांक 278/2015 फेटाळण्यात येते.

2. आदेशाची प्रत तक्रारदारांना विनामुल्य पाठविण्यात यावी.

[HON'BLE MR. A.Z.TELGOTE]
PRESIDENT

[HON'BLE MRS. KIRTI KULKARNI]
MEMBER

[HON'ABLE MR. S.R.SANAP]
MEMBER

 

**********

MAJOR IMPORTANT CHANGES IN MCS ACT, RULES AND BYE-LAWS - 2014

Major changes in MSC Act, 1960 viz-a-viz Model Bye Laws of Co-operative Housing Societies and similar changes have been done in all types of Co-operative Societies.

1. Condition for Membership: Applicant to take 10 shares of Rs.50 each as against earlier condition of 5 shares. Bye law No.22 on rights of membership talks about the right to receive the notice of demand from Society if there is increase in minimum contribution of member in share capital.

2. Classification of Active and Non-Active members: Active member:

o He has purchased and/or owns the Flat/Unit in the Society.

o He has attended at least One General Body Meeting within a consecutive period of Five years. (Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the member whose absence has been condoned by the General Body of the Society).

o He has at least paid the amount equivalent to Three year of Society Maintenance and Service charges within a consecutive period of Five years.

Non-Active member:

o A member who is not an ‘Active Member’ shall be the 'Non–Active Member'.

o Society shall classify the members as ‘Active’ or Non – Active’ member at the close of every financial year.

o Society shall communicate to every Non–Active member about his classification within a period of 30 days from 31st March of every year as prescribed under these Bye Laws as per Appendix

o If a question of a member being Active or Non – Active arises, an appeal shall lie to the Dy. Registrar within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of such classification.

o The 'Non-Active' member can be reclassified as 'Active Member' if he satisfies the conditions laid down under Byelaw no. 22(B) (1).

3. Associate Member Definition: Ownership in the property individually or jointly with others is must and whose name does not stand first in the Share Certificate.

4. Co-operative Education and Training to Members, Committee Members, Officers And Employees.

5. Education and Training fund of Rs.10 per member per month to be collected as against Rs.3 per member per annum and such fund to be used to impart training to the members through the notified Training Institutes.

6. Sinking fund can be utilized by the Society and no permission of the Registrar is needed. General body permission however, is must.

7. NOC of Society for transfer of flat or property is not required. However, MCS Rule 24 and Bye Law No.38 on transfer of shares and interest want the transferring member to give 15 days’ notice to the Society of his intention to do so along with the consent of the transferee member.

8. Elections of Managing Committee must be notified six months in advance and to be held under the supervision of the newly constituted State Co-operative Election Authority (SCEA) Sec.73 CB.

9. Casual vacancy in Managing Committee to be informed to Election Authority and Co-option is not allowed.

10. Disqualification of Managing Committee and its members- Sec.77-A & 78.

11. Strength of Management committee and Reservation of seats for Women and for members of SC, ST and OBC Category with Expert and Functional Directors appointment possible subject to conditions.-Sec.73AAA & Bye Law No.113.

12. Last date for conducting AGM is 30' Sept every year as against 14’ Aug.

13. Appointment of Auditors , their Remuneration, Rights and Responsibilities, Removal etc.-Auditor should be a panel auditor and maximum appointment for consecutive three years and maximum 20 audits excluding for Societies with paid capital of less than Rs.1lac. Additional responsibility to file FIR if misappropriation etc is noticed -Special & Specific Reports to be filed with Registrar by the auditor- Sec.81/ MCS Rules -69/Bye Law No.150-152

14. Cash expenses limit Rs.1500/- as against Rs.4500/-in Bye laws.-Bye Law No.144/ MCS Rule -107D.

15. Cash in Hand at the close of the day limit increased from Rs.300 to Rs.5000/-Bye Law No.143/MCS Rule -107C.

16. Encroachment of common areas by members to be charged at 5 times the monthly maintenance charges for the period of such encroachment.-Bye Law No.168.

17. Applicability and adoption of accounting standards prescribed by State Government and by ICAI-Sec.81 & notification dtd.29th Oct.2014 regarding the audit fees include the applicability of accounting standards and standards on auditing also.

18. Filing of Annual Mandatory Returns with the Registrar.-Sec.79 (1A) & 79(1B).

19. Penalties prescribed for various offenses and consolidated penalty for all defaults to be Rs.5000/-maximum in any financial year.

20. Concept of Emergency Planning Scheme and Fire Safety Audit introducing Bye Law N0.75. The Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Rules, 2009 has made it mandatory for building owners and residents to conduct half - yearly fire safety audits and submits the report to the Fire Department. As per the directive of Directorate of Maharashtra Fire Services, the safety audit has to be conducted by the “Licensed Agency" approved by them.

21. Structural Audit: once in 5 yrs for Bldg ageing 15-30 years and once in 3 years if Bldg ageing more than 30 year by BMC approved Structural Engineers.

22. One time limit for repairs and maintenance expenses Managing Committee can decide is Rs.1 lac Max.-else General Body permission must.

23. Cheques should be signed by Secretary and Chairman/Treasurer and same with the vouchers.

24. Mandatory filing of Annual Returns and auditor’s appointment should be insisted for.

25. Security Bond for holding cash from the employee and officer 500 and 1000 respectively if Paid up Capital is less than 1.50 lakhs and Rs.1000 & 2000 if it is more than 1.50 lakhs MCS Rule-107B.

26. The word "Administrator" has been removed and now the term is "Authorized Officer"

27. Audit Rectification Memo needs to be submitted to Registrar in ‘O’ Form within 3 months from the date of the audit report and even auditor has to give remarks on that penalty for Society of Rs.5000 u/s 147 Introduction of Sec.146 offences and 147 which talks about penalties

28.Dismissal of Managing Committee if the election due date is not intimated or mandatory returns are not filed, non submission of audit rectification report, not holding AGM or SGM as required under law, disobeying the notifications and order of the Government and Registrar etc.

29.Copy of Bye laws, list of members to be kept open for inspection to public free of charge.

**********

Associate Member's Name Cannot Appear In Voting List If Not The Co-Owner In Flat

**********