The building premises was completed and possessions were given to the flat owners between January 2011 and June 2011. The builder of the premises is absconding since then. Since then, there are three sets of flat owners in the premises under question. 1st set is the one that connived with the builder to delay the formation of the registered society. They collected money from most (not all) members in the guise of maintenance. This first set of flat owners (just two of them) have been occupying and living in the premises since they took possession from the builder. The second set of members (not all are active occupants – even though they have taken the possession from the builder) are the ones who paid such money to the first set without questioning the authority of the first set to collect such money. The third set of flat owners (who have taken the possession but are not occupying the premises) are the ones that did not pay any such money to the first set – because this third set claims that they had verbally agreed with the builder to pay the maintenance to the builder until the society is registered and handed over along with the conveyance and the occupancy certificate for the premises.
After the scam of the first set of flat owners and the builder came to light, the second set of flat owners initiated efforts to form and register the cooperative society of the premises – on behalf of all the flat owners. The cooperative society is registered only in July 2013 through the efforts of these second set of flat owners – without any cooperation from the builder. Occupancy certificate is not yet received and the conveyance hasn’t been effected as well.
Now, the second set of members who were successful in forming and registering the cooperative society are demanding that the third set of flat owners who never paid any money thus far, pay the money as maintenance at the rate agreeable in the forthcoming first AGM – retrospectively – since the date of possession.
Query is – will the newly formed society’s committee be entitled under any law (or any clauses of the model bye laws) to demand such money as maintenance retrospectively since the date of possession (say for example since 2011)?
