Supreme Court Judgement on Water Leakage : A Homebuyer’s Guide to Legal Rights

Owning a home is a lifetime achievement, but that dream can quickly turn into a nightmare when damp patches appear on the ceiling. Water leakage is not just an aesthetic nuisance; it is a structural hazard that causes mold, health issues, and mental agony. One of the most common questions Indian homeowners ask is, "Who is responsible for fixing the leak?" Is it the builder who used poor materials? The housing society that ignores terrace repairs? Or the neighbor upstairs whose bathroom is leaking? Recent judgements from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which have been upheld by the Supreme Court, have laid down clear laws on this issue. Here is a guide to your rights based on actual case laws.

In this blog, we will explore:

• Enough Thinking: Why you need to stop hesitating and start acting.
• Builder Liability: Your rights regarding defects in new apartments.
• Society Liability: Who pays for leakage from terraces and external walls.
• Neighbor Liability: Legal options when the upper-floor owner refuses to cooperate.
• Legal Remedies: A summary of where to file your complaint.

1. Builder Liability (New Flats)

If you have purchased a property recently (typically within the last 5 years), the law is heavily on your side. Builders often try to evade responsibility by claiming that the buyer caused the leak during interior work. The courts have rejected this excuse in the landmark case of M/s. Merridian Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. Harish Narayan Raghani & Dinesh Narayan Raghani (2012)

The Facts:

The complainants purchased a flat (GF-2) in November 2005 for Rs. 35 Lakh. In June-July 2007, they noticed seepage in the master bedroom's bathroom, which the builder initially rectified. However, the problem resurfaced in December 2008, affecting the kitchen walls on all four sides and damaging the woodwork. The builder refused to fix it the second time, alleging that the seepage was caused by "internal works" carried out by the buyers. To prove their case, the buyers hired a Chartered Engineer (Soham Consultants), who assessed the damage at approx. Rs. 92,195/- and noted that rectifying it would require breaking the walls due to internal plumbing issues.

The Verdict:

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed the builder's defense. The Commission observed that the builder failed to provide any specific reason or explanation as to how the internal work by the buyers caused the damage. The Court relied heavily on the independent expert's report, which confirmed that the dampness was not the buyers' fault.

The Ruling:

The NCDRC upheld the State Commission's order, holding the builder liable for "deficiency in service." The builder was directed to:

• Pay Rs. 1 Lakh towards rectification of defects, with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of the District Forum's order.
• Pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the homebuyers.

2. Society Liability (Terrace & External Walls)

In older buildings, the dispute often shifts to the Cooperative Housing Society (CHS). Many societies refuse to repair top-floor terraces, claiming "lack of funds," "old building issues," or blaming the top-floor owner. In the case of B-1 Devadig Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd vs. N.V. Deshpande (2017) courts have taken a strict stand against this negligence.

The Facts:

Mr. N.V. Deshpande, a senior citizen (88 years old), owned Flat No. 609, which was located directly below the building's terrace. He suffered tremendous loss to his household articles due to continuous water leakage from the terrace.

Despite repeated requests, the Society refused to undertake repairs, arguing that since the building was around 30 years old, it was "beyond their control" to stop the leakage and that the member had made permanent changes to the flat. Mr. Deshpande was eventually forced to repair the leakage at his own cost and sued the Society for deficiency in service.

The Verdict:

The State Commission and NCDRC ruled in favor of the member. They held that the terrace is a common amenity, and maintaining it is the exclusive responsibility of the Society. The Society's argument about the building's age was rejected as an invalid excuse for negligence. The Court also noted that the Society had "deliberately disobeyed" orders to harass a helpless senior citizen.

The Ruling:

The Society was held guilty of deficiency in service and ordered to:

• Carry out immediate waterproofing/repairs of the terrace to restore it to good condition.
• Pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the loss and mental agony, plus Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation.
• Pay an additional Rs. 25,000/- as costs for filing a frivolous appeal to delay the payment.

3. Neighbor Liability: Leakage from Upper Floors

In established housing societies, the dispute is often not with a builder or the society but with an uncooperative neighbor living on the floor above. When a neighbor refuses to repair leaking bathroom or kitchen pipes, claiming it is "private property" or denying the source, it creates a legal deadlock. In the case of Reshma Bombaywala-Lezinska vs. Nadeem Oomerbhoy (Bombay High Court, 2018), the courts have ruled that such negligence constitutes a "nuisance" and have the power to force repairs.

The Facts:

The petitioner, Reshma Bombaywala (a former model), lived on the 2nd floor of a building in South Mumbai. She suffered from severe water leakage originating from the flat above her, owned by Nadeem Oomerbhoy (from the family of a famous oil brand). The leakage was so severe that it caused the false ceiling to collapse and created an unhygienic atmosphere with black mold. Despite repeated requests and a notice from the Municipal Corporation (BMC), the neighbor refused to allow access to his flat for repairs, denying the source of the leak.

The Legal Stand:

Since this was a dispute between two private owners, it fell under the Law of Torts (Nuisance). The petitioner argued that the neighbor’s negligence was violating her "Right to Life" (Article 21) by denying her a safe and hygienic living environment.

The Verdict & Outcome:

The Bombay High Court took a stern view of the neighbor's refusal to cooperate. The Court observed that "unless members of the society cooperate... it will be difficult to reside peacefully." The Ruling:

The Court ordered the upper-floor neighbor to allow immediate inspection by an engineer/architect appointed by the Society.

The Court made it clear that if the neighbor continued to be uncooperative, the Society was entitled to take appropriate legal steps to force entry and repairs.

Key Lesson for Homeowners:

If a neighbor refuses to fix a leak, they are creating a "Private Nuisance." You can approach the Civil Court or High Court for a Mandatory Injunction, which is a court order forcing the neighbor to allow repairs.

Summary of Legal Routes

Practical Steps for Homeowners

If you are a victim of water leakage, follow this legal roadmap:

1. Document Evidence: Take photos and videos of the dampness. If possible, get a report from a civil engineer or architect pinpointing the source (as done in the Merridian Promoters case).
2. Send a Legal Notice: Before going to court, have a lawyer send a formal notice to the responsible party (Builder, Society, or Neighbor).
3. File a Complaint:

• Against Builder/Society: File in the Consumer Court (inexpensive and faster).
• Or complaint against Neighbor: Approach the Cooperative Court or Civil Court.

Conclusion

It is easy to fall into a trap of endless contemplation, constantly weighing the awkwardness of a legal dispute against the misery of a damp home. Many victims of water leakage hesitate for months, hoping the neighbor will suddenly find a conscience or the society will magically release funds, fearing that sending a legal notice might irrevocably sour relationships. However, there comes a point where "enough thinking" must translate into decisive action. Passive waiting does not repair concrete; it only allows the structural damage to spread and the repair costs to multiply. The legal system exists specifically to break this deadlock when mutual understanding fails, ensuring that your patience is not mistaken for weakness.

Ultimately, prioritizing your property’s safety is not an act of aggression, but of self-preservation. Stop overanalyzing the potential friction of a dispute and start focusing on the relief of a solution; the law is firmly on your side, but it requires you to take that first, firm step to enforce it.