Bombay High Court: While hearing a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Division Bench of Suman Shyam and S. M. Modak, JJ., held that a member of a cooperative housing society cannot entertain paying guests in his apartment through platforms such as Airbnb until the society’s resolution prohibiting such activity is set aside or declared illegal. The Court emphasised that the respondent society is a private entity and therefore the writ petition challenging cooperative housing society’s Airbnb ban was not maintainable. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of, granting liberty to pursue remedies before the Cooperative Court.
Background:
The petitioner, a member of the housing society, desired to keep paying guests in his apartment on commercial terms with the help of agencies and web-portals such as Airbnb. The society, however, was not willing to permit this activity, as its members were not agreeable to the same.
A resolution was adopted in the 57th Annual General Body Meeting held on 10-08-2008, reaffirmed in subsequent meetings, whereby no member was allowed to entertain paying guests without the permission of the society. Aggrieved by this restriction, the petitioner approached the Cooperative Court challenging the resolutions. While those proceedings were pending, he filed the present writ petition seeking reliefs including directions against harassment, cessation of interference, compensation for financial losses and mental agony, and urgent interim relief to allow Airbnb guests to stay.
In support of his arguments, the petitioner relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court and his written submissions, contending that as a senior citizen living a retired life, he had a right to earn livelihood by letting out rooms to paying guests. The respondent opposed the petition, raising the plea of maintainability and arguing that the petitioner had approached multiple forums earlier, including the Court and Supreme Court, and had been denied similar reliefs. It was contended that this amounted to abuse of the process of Court, warranting dismissal with exemplary costs.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that if the right of a member of the society is violated, he would be entitled to avail appropriate remedy under law. However, the Court highlighted that there is a majority decision of the members of the society not to permit any paying guest in the apartments. Therefore, until such time permission is granted or the resolution is set aside, the petitioner cannot entertain paying guests.
The Court noted that proceedings before the Cooperative Court on the same subject are already at an advanced stage and fixed for final hearing. It was observed that the petitioner must await the outcome of that process. The Court also observed that the sole respondent in this proceeding is a cooperative housing society, which is a private entity, and hence the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable.
Further, the Court noted that the petitioner had previously approached multiple forums, including the Supreme Court, where costs were imposed upon him and later reduced in review. In view of the overall facts and circumstances, and particularly the pendency of proceedings before the Cooperative Court, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging cooperative housing society’s Airbnb ban.
The petition was accordingly closed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedies before the Cooperative Court and seek expeditious disposal of that matter.
[Mahesh K Mehta v. Bharatiya Friend’s Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Writ Petition (L) No. 35471 of 2025, decided on 19-12-2025]
For the Petitioner: Appearing in-person
For the Respondent: Rashi P. Sheth with Dixita Singh, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
