Bombay High Court
VIJAY SHANKAR AND ANRversusSAI VIHAR RESIDENCY CONDOMINIUM AN APARTMENT CONDOMINIUM THR. ITS PRESIDENT D. P. PARANJAPE AND SEC
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners carried out prohibited alterations without the requisite permission, violating bye‑law 31(b) and 34(f), and therefore affirmed the order directing reconstruction and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioners, owners of flat C‑12A in Sai Vihar Residency Condominium, carried out interior and façade alterations—including demolition of brick walls and installation of a French window—without the written permission required under the condominium’s bye‑law No.31(b) and the exterior‑change provision of bye‑law No.34(f). The association had expressly rejected the two wall‑modification proposals, and the petitioners proceeded nonetheless, prompting the association to seek a direction from the Deputy Registrar to restore the walls and claim compensation. The petitioners relied on three structural audit reports (Ace, IVP, and StrucPro) asserting that the works did not affect the building’s structural safety, arguing that the association’s refusal was arbitrary. The Deputy Registrar and the Co‑operative Court held that the works constituted prohibited structural modifications and a breach of the bye‑laws, ordering reconstruction of the walls and dismissing the petition. The High Court examined whether the authorities’ decisions were unreasonable or violative of natural justice, concluding that the bye‑law requirements are contractual and the association’s refusal was within its lawful discretion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower courts’ order, dismissed the writ petition and extended the compliance deadline by six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the alterations made by the petitioners constitute ‘structural modifications’ under bye‑law No.31(b) and thus require prior written permission.
- Whether the association’s refusal of permission and the order directing reconstruction are arbitrary or violative of principles of natural justice.
- Whether the structural audit reports indicating no structural risk affect the applicability of the bye‑law restrictions.
- Whether the changes to the building’s exterior façade breach bye‑law No.34(f) which requires unanimous consent of all unitholders.
- Whether the Deputy Registrar and the Co‑operative Court acted within their jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act and Rules.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 — s. 7, 8
- Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 — s. 260(1A)(b)
Subjects
- Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act
- Co‑operative Court
- structural modifications
- condominium bye‑laws
- permission requirement
- exterior façade alteration
- natural justice
- arbitrariness
- structural audit report
- civil writ petition
Judgment
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12745 OF 2024
Vijay Shankar And Anr. …Petitioners
Versus
Sai Vihar Residency Condominium, An Apartment
Condominium Through Its President D. B.
Paranjape & Secretary …Respondent
Mr. Dushyant Purekar, a/w Rajat Dedhia, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Aniket Nangare, i/b R.S. Gangawane, for Respondent.
Digitally
signed by
ASHWINI
ASHWINI JANARDAN
JANARDAN VALLAKATI
VALLAKATI Date:
2026.03.04
11:35:00
CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
+0530
DATE : March 4, 2026
Judgement :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties,
heard finally.
Context and Factual Background:
2. This Petition essentially lays a challenge to a Judgment dated April
25, 2024 (“Impugned Order”), by which, two Appeals being Appeal No. 4 of
2022 and Appeal No.1 of 2023 were disposed of by the Co-operative Court,
Pune, which is the Appellate Authority (“ Co-operative Court”) under the
Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (“ the Act”), dealing with an
Page 1 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
order dated October 12, 2022 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Pune (“Registrar Order”).
3. At the heart of the dispute lies alterations and changes said to have
been effected by the Petitioners, Vijay Shankar and Indira Shankar
(collectively, “Petitioners”) in their apartment Flat No. C-12A (“Subject Flat”),
in Respondent No. 1, Sai Vihar Residency Condominium, (“ Sai Vihar”). The
Subject Flat had been acquired by the Petitioners by an Agreement dated
March 24, 2021. The various flat purchasers came together to form a
condominium by Deed of Declaration dated September 10, 2004. The bye-
laws of the Condominium have come into force pursuant to the said Deed of
Declaration (“bye-laws”). One of the provisions in the bye-laws of the
condominium is bye-law No.31(b), which prohibits any owner from making
structural modifications or alterations in the unit or any installation in the
unit, without obtaining previous permission of the association in writing
through the President of the Board. The bye-law provides for the concerned
unitholder being granted an opportunity of being heard by the Board and for
objections to be called from other unitholders for such modifications and
alterations. The Board would then recommend to the President for grant or
refusal of permission for such alteration.
Page 2 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
4. The Petitioners made an application dated June 30, 2021 to Sai
Vihar for approval of certain renovation work in their flat. A detailed scope of
work, containing about 16 items of work was communicated and two specific
items were identified as modifications. The President of the Sai Vihar is said to
have granted consent for the proposed work except for the two items identified
as wall modifications. The two wall modifications entailed breaking down the
brick wall between the kitchen and the third toilet to utilise the space towards
dining area and to break the hall towards balcony side to set up reinforced
French windows.
5. The Petitioners submitted a structural auditor report made by one
Ace Consulting Engineers dated June 18, 2021 (“ Ace Report”) to Sai Vihar.
The Ace Report certified that the proposed modifications would not affect the
structure in any manner and they would not be treated as structural
modifications. The Petitioners contend that in the teeth of the Ace Report, Sai
Vihar communicated that the two specific work items identified in the
category of wall modifications must not be proceeded with. Meanwhile, the
Pune Municipal Corporation (“PMC”) addressed a letter dated August 26,
2021 to the Petitioners, alleging that they had violated Section 260(1A)(b) of
the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, which was responded to
by a letter dated September 9, 2021, giving clarifications and submitting
photographs of the renovation.
Page 3 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
6. On September 23, 2021, Sai Vihar sent a lawyer's notice to the
Petitioners calling upon them to restore the demolished wall between the hall
and the balcony and the wall between the kitchen and the third toilet, which
were the modifications proposed by the Petitioners and specifically rejected by
Sai Vihar. On October 6, 2021, the committee members of Sai Vihar met the
Petitioners and directed that the two alterations of the walls would need to be
recreated by the Petitioners. On October 9, 2021, the Petitioners too replied
through their lawyers.
7. Thereafter, Sai Vihar carried out a structural audit of the Subject
Flat through a structural consultant appointed by it namely, IVP Structural
Consultants who gave a report dated February 1, 2022 (“ IVP Report”). It is the
Petitioners’ contention that the IVP Report explicitly returned a finding that
the brick wall, which had been removed, is non-structural in nature and the
concrete column between the door and the window which is a structural
member has not been removed or demolished and in fact no damage was
detected on it. The IVP Report also indicated that a non-structural partition
brick wall has been created and the structural members in this regard have not
been removed, demolished or damaged. A non-structural window was said to
be projecting on the outer side and the non-structural partition brick wall
constructed for opening of the toilet window and door had been constructed.
Page 4 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
8. The IVP Report stated that it was a product of checking for
structural components, if any, that had been removed, and for any damage by
the Petitioners in the different locations as set out in the mandate. The IVP
Report stated that the Petitioners had made some changes, but only in non-
structural members like removal of brick wall and projecting the window on
the outer side with the opening being filled by brick masonry and sunken slab.
9. Thereafter on March 29, 2022, Sai Vihar has filed a complaint
before the Deputy Registrar seeking a relief of directing the Petitioners to
restore the alleged alterations carried out by them and for compensation and
costs. The Petitioners too filed a complaint before the same authority against
Sai Vihar. In aid of the proceedings, the Petitioners appointed one more
structural consultant namely, StrucPro Consultants which also gave a report
dated May 24, 2022 (“StrucPro Report”). According to the Petitioners, the
StrucPro Report clearly indicated that all the changes that had been made in
the partition wall and the removal of non-structural members, did not create
any loading distribution problem for the building.
10. It was certified that the Subject Flat structure was safe and sound,
on the basis of a visual inspection and without any destructive or non-
destructive tests being performed. The StrucPro Report also recommended
that every five years, a periodic structural audit should be conducted for the
Page 5 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
safety of the structure which has not been carried out on the 22-year old
building. The report contained a disclaimer that the authors of the report
would not be responsible for the stability of the total building, since their
inspection was restricted to the Subject Flat.
11. By an order dated October 7, 2022, the Deputy Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Pune dismissed the complaint filed by the Petitioners. On
October 12, 2022, the Deputy Registrar allowed the complaint filed by Sai
Vihar by passing the Registrar Order. An explicit finding by the Deputy
Registrar was that structural alteration had been carried out by the
Petitioners. The Petitioners' grievance is that all the three reports of structural
auditors had been completely ignored, only emphasizing on the fact that the
board of Sai Vihar had opined that the alteration must not be carried out.
12. Sai Vihar filed Appeal No.4 of 2022 before the Co-operative Court.
Sai Vihar’s grievance was that the Deputy Registrar had failed to give any
specific directions to the Petitioners to restore the removal of the walls in the
Subject Flat. The Petitioners too filed Appeal No.1 of 2023 before the Co-
operative Court challenging the Registrar Order on the premise that it ignored
findings of there being no structural change or risk to the structure.
Page 6 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
13. The Co-operative Court, after hearing the parties, directed the
Petitioners to reconstruct the walls which had been removed and directed
payment of compensation of Rs.2,000/- as costs to Sai Vihar.
Contentions of the Parties:
14. I have heard Mr. Dushyant Purekar, Learned Advocate for the
Petitioners and Mr. Aniket Nangare, Learned Advocate for Sai Vihar and with
their assistance, examined the material on record. The core grievance of Mr.
Purekar is that there are three reports of structural auditors that form part of
the record, and all three reports contain one unanimous conclusion, namely,
that there is no “structural” alteration or risk to the structure due to the
repairs in the Subject Flat. Yet, the Deputy Registrar had allowed Sai Vihar’s
complaint and rejected the Petitioners’ complaint. The Petitioners are
aggrieved that the Deputy Registrar has been arbitrary in disregarding the
specific finding that there has been no structural modification to the Subject
Flat on the part of the Petitioners.
15. Mr. Purekar would submit that the Co-operative Court indeed
considered the submissions of the Petitioners about interpretation of the term
“structural alterations” as extracted from Black's Law Dictionary but simply
failed to deal with the aforesaid three reports. According to Mr. Purekar, the
Impugned Order has restricted its consideration to the absence of grant of
Page 7 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
permission for carrying out of renovations and therefore, the Impugned Order
is arbitrary. He would submit that ignoring the opinions of professionals
which was placed before the board of Sai Vihar, constitutes ignoring objective
material resulting in an arbitrary decision. Both the Deputy Registrar and the
Co-operative Court ought to have accepted the contents of the audit reports
and allowed the complaint of the Petitioners and disallowed the complaint of
Sai Vihar. This, he would submit, is evidence of high handedness of abuse of
power on the part of the office bearers of the Board, and the President of Sai
Vihar. They had also created physical impediments for movement of the truck
carrying belongings of the Petitioners, necessitating intervention of the police
to allow the truck to enter the premises of the condominium. Thereby, he
would allude to positive discrimination against the Petitioners, which could
not have been ignored by the two forums.
16. In contrast, Mr. Aniket Nangare, Learned Advocate for Sai Vihar
would submit that it is the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (“ the
Act”) that governs the decision on the specific changes effected by the
Petitioners, contrary to the stipulations in the bye-laws. The modifications
include the removal of a window; a brick wall in the hall which is attached to
the balcony; replacement of the same by a sliding glass door; removal of a
brick wall of the toilet adjacent to the kitchen; projection of a window outside;
Page 8 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
and the toilet window and door opening on the outer wall being filled,
resulting in a change in the façade of the building.
17. Mr. Nangare would submit that the alterations and modifications
have been rightly held to be in conflict with the requirements of the bye-laws
and therefore, the categorical finding in the Impugned Order in reliance upon
the specific provisions of the Act, namely, Section 7, Section 8 read with Rule
41(2) of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Rules 1972 (“ Rules”) as
indeed bye-law No.31(b) and 34(f), is a sound and valid finding and must not
be lightly interfered with.
18. After the matter was heard on a couple of occasions, it was put to
the parties to consider whether they could still resolve their disputes in the
spirit of neighborliness by considering repairs and reconstruction of anything
that affects the external façade of the building and otherwise not disturb any
changes inside the Subject Flat that does not risk the structure and safety of
the building. However, the parties were unable to arrive at a resolution, which
necessitated adjudication of this Petition.
Analysis and Findings:
19. At the threshold, the following provisions from the bye-laws of Sai
Vihar would be noteworthy:-
Page 9 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
“31(b) An owner shall not make any structural modifications or
alterations in his unit or installations located therein without
previously obtaining permission of the association in writing through
the president of the board, who shall grant or refuse the permission as
may be decided by the board. The concerned unit shall be granted an
opportunity of being heard by the board. The board shall also call for
objections if any from the unit owners for such structural modifications
and alterations. The board on consisting all the aspects shall
recommend to the president to grant or refuse the permission.
34(f) In no case, the exterior of the building shall be changed or
modified, unless all the unit owners specifically decide in writing.”
20. A plain reading of the foregoing would indicate that the phrase
“structural modifications or alterations” in relation to any unit or installations
located therein, has been used in Clause 31(b). Carrying out any such change
would need the prior permission of Sai Vihar in writing through the President
of the Board. The President is obliged to grant or refuse permission as decided
by the Board. Indeed, an opportunity of being heard would be granted to the
unitholder. The views of other unitholders would also be taken into account in
making a recommendation. Likewise, under Clause 34(f), unitholders are
prohibited from changing or modifying the exterior of the building without the
unanimous consent of all unitholders in the building. This would be
regardless of whether the changes are technically “structural modifications”.
Page 10 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
21. It is in this backdrop that one must examine the reliance upon the
three structural audit reports pressed into service on behalf of the Petitioners.
I have also examined the contemporaneous correspondence between the
parties in relation to the repair works undertaken in the Subject Flat, along
with the structural audit reports. What is evident is that the three reports deal
with matters of structural safety. They are based on visual inspection and the
mandate given to the three structural auditors was to examine the threat to
structural safety only arising out of the repairs carried out by the Petitioners.
22. However, if one examines the core legal issue, whether or not
structural safety was compromised is one of the factors that would be
considered by the Board and by other unitholders in the accord of their
approval or disapproval of the proposed requests. However, they have the
discretion to reject the changes in their perception of risk to the building
which is indeed 22 years old, and said to not have been subjected to a
structural audit.
23. A plain reading of Bye-law No.31(b) would show that the owner of a
unit is obliged not to make any structural modifications or alterations in his
unit without the prior written permission of the association. In the facts of this
case, there was a prior written rejection of the proposal and yet the Petitioners
went on to effect the alterations. The specific alterations include action that
Page 11 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
has changed the façade of the building. The work included demolition of
certain walls, installation of a window and the demolition of the wall of a toilet
and installation of a projected window, which directly caused a change to the
exterior of the building.
24. In the writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the
decisions of the Board of the condominium in the same manner as the Court
would examine decisions of a statutory authority. However, this Court would
examine if the decisions of the Deputy Registrar and the Co-operative Court
were in accord with constitutional guarantee of reasoned decisions and
absence of arbitrariness.
25. Against this backdrop, one must examine the approach adopted by
the authorities in their concurrent findings. Once a member of the
condominium becomes party to the contract evidenced in the bye-laws of the
condominium, he would be bound by the terms and conditions of that
contract. If the contract provides for a specific prior written permission of the
association in order to carry out any work, it would not be for the Writ Court
to sit in judgment over the wisdom of the association as if it were an agency of
the State falling within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
However, whether the decision was arbitrary and whether the statutory
Page 12 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
authorities who are charged with dispute resolution have acted in a reasonable
manner is needed to be examined.
26. It is noted that the closing of the toilet window by filling brick
masonry and opening a window externally indeed altered the exterior view of
the building and changed the facade of the building just at the floor occupied
by the Subject Flat. This is squarely contrary to bye-law 34(f), which required
unanimous consent of all unitholders for such a change to the building wall
and its façade and exterior wall. The President specifically communicated a
rejection of the proposed change and yet the Petitioners powered on to effect
the changes including to the outer wall. This is squarely in the teeth of the
obligations contracted in bye-law 34(f) and the Impugned Order cannot be
faulted in this regard.
27. Therefore, whether the other changes were “structural alterations
or modifications” is the issue that remained and this was also considered in
the Impugned Order. Indeed, structural safety or threat to it is a factor that
would aid and assist the Board of condominium to decide whether or not to
permit carrying out of a renovation. However, whether the change is
structural or not, with or without a threat to structural safety is a question of
fact that has to be considered by the Board of Sai Vihar. In my opinion, the
Page 13 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
thrust of the Petitioners’ contentions is that the three reports indicated no
threat to structural safety.
28. Bye-law 31(b) does not link the changes and the right to permit or
refuse permission to just structural safety. The structure and design of units
in a building have ramifications for all others in the building and these can be
outside the scope of structural safety too. For example, if one were to change
the structure of a residence by bringing in handling of water and moving a wet
area to a space that is not meant to have such wet handling, there could be
leakage to the floors below, without any threat to structural safety of the
building. This is just an example. Therefore, when a collective gets together
and concludes a group contract, conferring power on a representative body to
take decisions, it is a conscious choice made by the collective to enable such
body to take decisions. Such decision may not be optimal to every member
but would represent the lowest common denominator of what appeals and
seems agreeable to the collective.
29. It is against this backdrop that one must examine the validity of the
Impugned Order and see whether the Impugned Order is a product of any
breach of due process and arbitrariness in considering the scope of its
appellate jurisdiction. The Impugned Order clearly identifies the provisions of
bye-law No.31(b) and bye-law No.34(f) and has objectively identified that the
Page 14 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
modifications and alterations effected by the Petitioners were in the teeth of
the positive refusal of permission by the association.
30. As stated above, evidently, the exterior of the building and the view
thereof stood permanently modified with the window being filled up calling
foul of by-law No.34(f). Since it is an admitted position that the Petitioners
indeed carried out repairs without permission and indeed altered the view of
the external wall of the building, in my opinion, no case has been made out to
reject the approach adopted by the Co-operative Court in passing of the
Impugned Order in relation to changes made to the exterior wall of the
building. The Co-operative Court explicitly has accurately returned a finding
that the repairs resulting in change to the façade carried out by the Petitioners
in the Subject Flat was without permission or rather contrary to the
requirements of the by-laws. No fault can be found in the objective finding in
this regard.
31. As regards the other repairs, the Co-operative Court indeed
considered the definition of “structural alterations” from Black's Laws
Dictionary cited on behalf of the Petitioners. The Petitioners’ contention in
this regard was that if there is no danger to the structure, the association ought
not to have objected. The Ace Report is the only report made prior to the
repairs to aid and assist the Petitioners’ advocating the changes, which they
Page 15 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
themselves identified as modifications. The IVP Report and the StrucPro
Report are both post-facto reports that comment on whether structural safety
has been compromised.
32. In my view, it is not unfair or arbitrary to hold that the right to
approve or reject is a right that is taken by consensus by the condominium.
Such decision is more a decision based on the collective best judgment of all
unitholders as what should be allowed or disallowed and what is desirable to
approve to reject. Once one decides to live in a building that is managed by a
collective such as a condominium or a co-operative society, individual unit
holders merge their identity into the identity of the association. What is good
for the collective whole is a matter that is best left to the domain of the
collective. Every dissenting member's view is difficult to be accommodated to
the fullest. The association is not meant to conduct a quasi-judicial procedure
to decide upon matters as mundane as repair works, it is rather an
administrative and executive decision on what appears in the best interests of
all unitholders as a composite whole.
33. It would not be possible to run a collective unit like a condominium
if each and every member decides to interpret on its own, whether or not a
modification to the structure of a unit is not a “structural modification” on the
premise that structural safety was not under threat. Such an approach could
Page 16 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
lead to multiple disparate changes from multiple members, with none of them
individually being a risk to structural safety, but indeed in the cumulative
effect, could impact even the structural safety of the building.
34. The test of reasonableness to be adopted by this Court is to examine
whether the Deputy Registrar and the Co-operative Court carried out their role
in a reasonable manner. As far as the relationship between the Petitioners and
Sai Vihar is concerned, it is a contractual one and that contractual relationship
is determined by the provisions of the bye-laws, whose interpretation is to be
examined for perversity. So long as the association has acted consistent with a
plausible interpretation of the bye-laws, and has exercised its power in its own
wisdom not to approve of the modifications in question, it would not be
possible for the writ court to delve deeper into it and conduct an appellate
review sitting in the writ jurisdiction.
35. The approach of the association in refusing the changes to the
structure of the unit by breaking internal walls need not be informed solely by
assessments of structural safety. In its wisdom, the association is entitled to
refuse permission to a change to the structure. It may be arguable that a
change proposed is not “structural” because of no threat to structural safety.
However, if it is equally plausible to hold that the changes to the structure in
the plain English meaning of the term “structure” is undesirable and is to be
Page 17 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
refused, it would not be possible to second-guess that and substitute one
plausible view with another plausible view.
36. When one sees how the Co-operative Court has discharged its
appellate role from this perspective, in my opinion, no case is made out for
finding fault with the Impugned Order. That apart, the Co-operative Court has
indeed examined the Petitioners’ reliance on interpretation of the term
“structural modification” from Black’s Law Dictionary and has in fact pointed
out that the judgement of the Supreme Court in Amrendra Pratap1, where the
Supreme Court has declared that dictionaries can be safe guides for
discovering the meaning of words not defined in a statute, but can never be the
final word on interpretation. The Co-operative Court has correctly held that
words used in the bye-laws would need to take colour from the context and
setting in which they have been used. Assigning of a meaning or a sense in one
context may not be relevant for deployment in another context. The context in
which the phrases are used in the bye-laws is to arrive at a common
denominator that would work for all the unitholders of the Society.
37. The Co-operative Court has also gone on to extract from the reports
filed by the structural auditors and has noticed that the report of IVP Report
indeed indicates structural change. The bye-laws make no reference to safety
1 Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tejbhadur Prajapati & Ors. – AIR 2004 SC 3782
Page 18 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
being the determinative factor for allowing or refusing a structural change. If
every unitholder decides to bring in criteria and that too after making the
changes disapproved by the collective, even safety may be compromised.
Moreover, the Co-operative Court has also noticed the provisions of Section 7
and Section 8 of the Act as the context in which the bye-laws that bind every
apartment owner including the Petitioners must be read. The element of safety
is contained in Section 8 but in Section 7, it is clear that the bye-laws and their
operation are administrative provisions, which indicates the legislature’s
intent is not to treat the Board’s decisions as quasi-judicial functions. These
provisions are extracted below:
Section 7 - Compliance with covenants bye-laws and administrative provisions
Each apartment owner shall comply strictly with the bye-laws and with the
administrative rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, as either of the same
may be lawfully amended from time to time, and with the covenants, conditions and
restrictions set forth in the Declaration or in the Deed to his apartment. Failure to
comply with any of the same shall be a ground for an action to recover sums due, for
damages or injunctive relief or both maintainable by the Manager or Board of
Managers on behalf of the Association of Apartment Owners, or, in a proper case, by
an aggrieved apartment owner.
Section 8 - Certain work prohibited
Apartment owner shall do any work which would jeopardize the soundness or safety
of the property, reduce the value thereof or impair any easement or hereditament nor
Page 19 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
may any apartment owner add any material structure or excavate any additional
basement or cellar without in every such case the unanimous consent of all the other
apartment owners being first obtained.
[Emphasis Supplied]
38. The definitions of the Black’s Law Dictionary pressed into service by
the Petitioners is extracted below:
Black’s Law Dictionary – 1990 Edition:
Structural alterations or changes – One that affects a vital and substantial
portion of a thing that changes its characteristic appearance, the fundamental
purpose of its erection, and the uses contemplated. One that is extraordinary
in scope and effect, or unusual in expenditure.
Black’s Law Dictionary – 8th Edition 2004:
Structural alteration. A significant change to a building or other structure,
essentially creating a different building or structure.
39. To my mind, nothing turns on these definitions. These are
meanings in a law language dictionary culled out of cases decided in their
respective context. These are indeed, as rightly stated by the Co-operative
Court, indicative but not determinative and conclusive. Even in legislation,
typically definitions assigned are subject to variation where the context
requires. Even then going by the meanings assigned in this dictionary, it is
apparent that the repairs carried out at least to the extent of the exterior wall
Page 20 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
901-F-J-WP-12745-2024.doc
changed the characteristic appearance of the building. Removing walls and
filling up gaps by bricks did change the structure of the unit, perhaps without
eroding structural safety, but nevertheless these were changes to structure,
which in terms of the bye-laws were specifically disapproved and yet the
Petitioners carried them out to present a situation with the suggestion that it is
too late to change it i.e. a fait accompli.
40. In the facts of this case, there was a positive rejection of the two
modifications by way of the administrative decision. If that was ignored on
the premise of structural safety being the justification, Sai Vihar was entitled
to have it remedied. The Deputy Registrar and the Co-operative Court have
agreed with Sai Vihar in a plausible manner.
41. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order.
The Petition is dismissed. Considering the time taken for disposal of this
Petition, the time to effect compliance with the directions upheld in the
Impugned Order is extended by a further of six weeks from the date of upload
of this order on the website of this Court.
42. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be
taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]
Page 21 of 21
March 4, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
Checking your session…