Authority: Calcutta High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 18 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Ambika Beri; Respondent No.1 – Forum Atmosphere Flat Owners Association (also referred to as Forum Atmosphere Plot Owners Association); Respondent No.2 – unnamed co‑respondents.
  • Background: Ms. Beri purchased unit E‑101 (first & second floor, Tower East) of the residential complex “Forum Atmosphere” on 9 February 2024 from Forum Projects Pvt. Ltd (the developer). The association filed a complaint on 23 December 2024 alleging illegal construction in the unit; the Kolkata Municipal Corporation regularized the construction by a letter dated 13 June 2025.
  • Dispute: Ms. Beri was denied membership of the owners’ association and consequently could not use the complex’s “My Gate” entry‑exit application nor obtain a gas connection from the dedicated gas bank inside the complex. She filed suit (TS No. 1060 of 2025) seeking declaration of her rights to the gas connection, My Gate access, and other essential amenities, as well as an ad‑interim injunction.
  • Procedural History: The trial court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore) refused the ad‑interim injunction on 17 July 2025, citing an arbitration clause in the sub‑lease dated 9 February 2024. Subsequent related orders include:
  • Title Suit No. 1217 of 2025 – ad‑interim injunction dated 1 August 2025 restraining defendants from altering the suit property until 29 August 2025.
  • Arbitration order dated 5 February 2026 – status‑quo restraining the developer from changing common‑area characteristics.
  • Letter from the developer dated 22 March 2025 indicating intent to seek association permission for gas‑line work.
  • Legal Submissions: The appellant relied on the sub‑lease definition of common areas, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation regularisation, the association’s memorandum of association (Clause 2), and Section 2(n)(v) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016. He also cited Supreme Court judgment (Hammad Ahmed Vs Abdul Majid & Ors., 2019 14 SCC 1) to argue for a mandatory injunction where a strong prima facie case exists.
  • Respondent Arguments: The respondents contended that gas connection requires infrastructure, is not an essential amenity, and that the developer had not provided it; therefore the appellant could not demand it from the association and could use LPG cylinders instead.

Final Outcome

  • The appellate court modifies the order dated 17 July 2025, directing the association to allow the appellant to continue using the “My Gate” app for entry and exit.
  • The court does not grant any order regarding the gas connection, stating that doing so would render the pending injunction application infructuous.
  • The appeal is disposed of, with a directive to the trial court to hear and dispose of the injunction application scheduled for 5 September 2026 within one month, without any further adjournment, and to decide independently of the observations made by this Court.
  • The observations made by the appellate bench are tentative, and no definitive order on the gas connection is issued.
  • An urgent certified copy of the order may be supplied upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Real Estate Amenity Dispute, Court Order