Issue
Whether, according to the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960, the Court, during the pendency of the main dispute, make such interlocutory orders ordering an occupant of the flat in question to pay the required sum of money to the society, in order to allow it to discharge its obligations?

Rule
I shall describe the relevant rules in my own words:

Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960:
91. Disputes:
According to this section, any dispute involving a society's constitution, elections of its officers (aside from those for committees of the specified societies), management, or other business must be referred by one of the parties to the dispute, by a federal society to which the society is affiliated, or by a creditor of the society, regardless of what is stated in any other law currently in effect, to the co-operative Court if both the parties thereto are one or other of the following:-

A society, its committee, any previous committee, any past or present officers, agents, or servants, as well as any nominees for or legal representatives of any past or present officers, agents, or servants of the society who have passed away, as well as the society's liquidator or the designated Assignee of a de-registered society OR

A society that is a member of the society, a person claiming to be a member of the society, a prior member of the society, a deceased member of the society, or a society that is a member of the society OR a member, past member of a person claiming through a member, past member of a deceased member of society, or a society which is a member of the society or a person who claims to be a member of the society;

OR a person who is not a member of the society with whom the society conducts dealings that are subject to limits or requirements set forth in sections 43, 44, or 45, as well as any party claiming via such a party;

Clarification 2.-According to this clause, a disagreement includes:
A claim made by or made against a society for any debt or demand owing to it from a member or due from it to a member, former member, nominee, heir, or legal representative of a deceased member, or servant an employee, whether or not such a debt or demand is acknowledged OR

A surety's claim for any amount or demand owed to him by the principle borrower in connection with a loan from a society that was collected from the surety as a result of the principal borrower's default, whether the amount or demand is acknowledged or not OR

A claim made by a society for any loss suffered by a member, past member, or dead member; an officer, past agent, or deceased agent; a servant, past servant, past servant, or deceased servant; or by its committee, past or present, whether the loss was acknowledged or not OR

The unwillingness or failure of a member, previous member, nominee, heir, or legal representative of a deceased member to turn over control of property or any other asset that the society has taken back as the assignment because of a breach of the assignment's terms.

Section 95
5 Attachment Before Award Or Order And Interlocutory Orders
Where a dispute has been referred to the Co-operative Court under section 93 or 105 or whether the Registrar or the person authorised under section 88 hears a person against whom charges are framed under that section and the Co-operative Court or the Registrar or the authorised person, as the case may be, is satisfied on inquiry or otherwise that a party to such dispute or the person against whom proceedings are pending under section 88, with intent to defeat, delay or obstruct the execution of any award or the carrying out of any order that may be made:

1. Is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or
2. Is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from its or his jurisdiction, the Court or the Registrar or the authorised person, as the case may be, may, unless adequate security is furnished, direct conditional attachment of the said property, and such attachment shall have the same effect as if made by a competent Civil Court

AND The Co-operative Court, the Registrar, or the authorised person, as applicable, should issue a notice calling upon the person whose property is thus attached to produce security as it or he believes adequate within a specified term where attachment of property is directed under sub-section (1). The body issuing the notification may confirm the order and, once the disagreement is resolved or the proceedings under section 88 are concluded, may direct the disposal of the property thus attached in order to pay the claim, if one is granted, if the person fails to furnish the requested collateral.

Section 101:
1 [Recovery of arrears due to certain societies as arrears of land revenue
Despite anything contained in segments 91, 93 and 98, on an application made by a co-operative housing society for the recovery of arrears of its levy, for the recovery of any aggregate high level to, or any membership or some other sum due from, the individuals from the society or class of social orders so not advised and on the society concerned providing an statement of accounts in regard of the arrears, the Registrar may, in the wake of making such requests as he considers fit, award a certificate for the recovery of the sum expressed in that to be expected as arrears.

Where the Registrar is fulfilled that 9 [the concerned society has neglected to make a move under the previous sub-segment in regard of any sum due as arrears,] the Registrar may, of his motion, in the wake of making such requests as he considers fit, award a certificate for the recovery of the sum expressed in that to be expected as arrears and such a certificate will be considered to have been given as though on an application made by the society concerned.

A certificate conceded by the Registrar under sub-section (1) or (2) will be final and a conclusive confirmation of the arrears expressed to be expected in that, and the equivalent will be recoverable according to the law for the time being in force for the recovery of land revenue.

The Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Act, 2016
Rights And Duties Of Allottees
19. Rights and duties of allottees:
(6) Every allottee who has entered into an agreement for sale to purchase an apartment, plot, or building under section 13 is obligated to make the required payments in the fashion and within the prescribed time in the said sales agreement. They must also pay their fair share of the registration fees, municipal taxes, water and electricity charges, maintenance fees, ground rent, and other fees, if there are any, at the proper time and place.

Analysis
Before we proceed with the analysis, we shall see the facts of the case:

According to Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, Respondent No. 1 Co-operative Housing Society filed a complaint against both its member and the occupier of the contested premises. In the meanwhile, the society filed an application requesting that the opposing parties�the member and the occupant�deposit the Rs. 6074,69 that was owed to the Society in relation to the disputed apartment as of April 30, 1981.

The opponents of the aforementioned issue were also asked to be ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 180/- every month beginning on May 1, 1981, until the dispute was resolved. Without affecting the rights and claims of any of the parties, the Co-operative Court granted this motion and ordered the real occupant to pay the Society a sum of Rs. 8100/- by or before February 22, 1982. The real occupier was also ordered to pay the Society Rs. 180/- each month beginning in April 1982 and continuing until the matter was resolved. The occupant's appeal against this interim order was unsuccessful. This petition resulted from it.

Now, let us look at some relevant precedents:

In Rasila1 S. Mehta v. Custodian, (2011) 6 SCC 220, It was held that
57. The Custodian emphasised that pursuant to the rules and bylaws of the Mumbai cooperative housing societies, established under the provisions of the Maharashtra cooperative societies Act, all owners of residential properties/flats, as members of the housing society, are obligated to pay such amount as may be determined by the society towards the upkeep, maintenance and repairs of the flats in addition to the facilities and shared spaces in the apartment complex. Because of this, cooperative housing societies have the right to pursue members who haven't paid the organisation on time for all arrears and charges."

And

"The owners of the properties mentioned in this case, who have been notified parties, have neglected to pay their fair share of the maintenance costs, interest, and other fees incurred by the Madhuli Cooperative Housing Society Limited in order for the Society to repair the properties, according to the notice. In a letter dated 12.03.2009, Madhuli Cooperative Housing Society Limited demanded Rs. 1,87,97,011/- as total unpaid dues for the eight attached properties in question.

The Custodian is responsible for paying the costs incurred by the society for the repair of the aforementioned properties from the account of the notified parties, whereas the notified parties/entities occupying the attached property are responsible for the maintenance costs, including interest for late payments. There is no doubt that the Custodian is obligated to cover society's maintenance and repair costs."

The majority of the cost of living in an apartment, aside from stamp duty and registration fees, consists of maintenance expenses, which are depending on the size and grade of care of the building. Repair fees are typically used to cover costs associated with maintaining common spaces, utilities, and security apparatus like Surveillance. Power stations, elevators, and a clubhouse are a few of the amenities. Simply put, in exchange for the maintenance fee, the society where you reside offers services including security, cleaning, gardening, a lift and power backup, painting, and civil repairs in the society's common spaces. This is alluded to as the society maintenance charge.

These fees may be determined by the general body, but they must be at least 0.75 percent of the yearly rent or retail purchase price. Whether the apartment is occupied or unoccupied, the owner or renter is obligated to pay the monthly maintenance charges. Thanks to the bylaws, the organisation will have the power to operate legally in accordance with its requirements.

Personally, I'd argue the following: You join a bigger, more welcoming, almost a family group once you are the legal owner of a home in a housing society. Owning a home requires a lifetime commitment and comes with a recurring expense in the shape of an apartment and society maintenance fees. This, however, shouldn't be viewed as a reason for worry but rather as a necessary investment you make for a practical and pleasant way of life. As a result, they are justifiable since they uphold the law and benefit a great number of people at a fair price, in line with the socialist principles of our great country.

Thus, taking into account all the precedents, facts, circumstances and rationale, we can easily say that the society in question, La-Rose Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, has the legitimate right to demand maintenance fees from the occupant of the flat, during the pendency of the main suit. After all, by restricting or forbidding it from collecting any money at all in relation to the disputed apartment, the Society cannot be left in the dark.

The society must, after all, fulfil its own duties, pay the required taxes and dues, and also collect the society's dues. I also like to draw attention to the fact that the impugned order was issued during an interim or interlocutory stage of the proceedings. The fact that it has been so enacted will not prohibit the court hearing the main dispute from making the required orders at that time after taking into account all of the oral and written evidence that may have by that point been entered into the record.

Thus, I would like to say that it is in line with the principles of natural justice to demand the occupant to pay his necessary dues, as he still has time to contest the matter in the main dispute.

Conclusion
Thus, we can conclude by saying that yes, according to the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960, the Court, during the pendency of the main dispute can make such interlocutory orders ordering an occupant of the flat in question to pay the required sum of money to the society, in order to allow it to discharge its obligations as it is in line with the principles of natural justice.

Bibliography

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/723750/