The 51% Consent Rule for Mumbai Society Redevelopment

Direct answer: a Mumbai co-operative housing society can lawfully approve its own redevelopment once at least 51% of its total membership votes in favour at a properly convened Special General Body Meeting (SGBM). That "51% consent" figure comes from the Government of Maharashtra directive issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (MCS) Act, 1960, dated 4 July 2019, which replaced the older and much stricter directive dated 3 January 2009. The single point most members get wrong is this: the 51% is measured against the society's total number of members on its register — not against only the members who attend or vote on the day.

Below we break down where the rule comes from, what "51%" is actually a percentage of, how it differs from the older thresholds, a step-by-step worked example, and how the number changes for cessed buildings, SRA (slum) schemes, cluster redevelopment and very small buildings. There is also a lookup table for your own society size, and the FSI band table your committee should read before it votes on any developer's offer.

Where the 51% rule comes from: Section 79A and the 4 July 2019 directive

Section 79A of the MCS Act, 1960 gives the State Government the power to issue binding directives to co-operative societies "in the public interest". Redevelopment of old housing societies became such a flashpoint — opaque developer selection, forged consent letters, stalled projects — that the State used Section 79A to lay down a single, uniform procedure that every housing society in Maharashtra must follow when it redevelops.

The current directive is dated 4 July 2019. It expressly superseded the earlier 3 January 2009 directive and tightened the process while, importantly, lowering the headline consent number to 51%. The directive is not optional guidance; a society that skips its steps risks having the whole redevelopment challenged and set aside. For a full walk-through of every stage, see our step-by-step 79A redevelopment process guide.

The directive sets three separate numerical thresholds that people frequently mix up:

• Requisition to call the meeting — not less than 1/5th (20%) of the members must sign the requisition asking the managing committee to convene the redevelopment SGBM.
• Quorum on the day — at least 2/3rd of the total membership must be present for the SGBM to be valid.
• Approval of redevelopment — not less than 51% of the total membership strength must vote in favour.

Some quick vocabulary, because these words appear throughout: an SGBM is a Special General Body Meeting called for a specific purpose. Quorum is the minimum number of members who must be present before a meeting can validly take decisions. A requisition is a formal signed demand from members that forces the committee to hold a meeting.

"51% of what?" — the most misunderstood point

The rule says 51% of the total membership strength, not 51% of members who are present, and not 51% of votes cast. This matters enormously in practice. If a member abstains, stays away, or leaves before the vote, their silence effectively counts as a "not in favour" for the purpose of reaching 51% — because the denominator never shrinks. It is always the full register.

So a society is really clearing two gates at the same meeting: it needs two-thirds present (quorum) and, out of the whole membership, a majority above 51% voting yes. It is entirely possible to have quorum and still fail the consent test if too many attendees vote no or abstain.

There is a second arithmetic trap. You cannot have a fraction of a member, and the directive says "not less than" 51%, so every calculation is rounded up to the next whole member. In a small building that pushes the real bar well above 51%. In a 12-member society, 51% of 12 is 6.12, so you need 7 yes votes — an effective 58.3%. In a 40-member society you need 21 of 40, an effective 52.5%. Only at 100 members does 51% land exactly on 51 votes. The smaller your society, the more the rounding costs you, and the more each single hold-out matters.

The older, higher thresholds — what actually changed

Before 4 July 2019, redevelopment was governed by the 3 January 2009 directive and by long-standing practice that demanded a much higher level of consent — societies commonly worked toward roughly 70% agreement, and in reality many committees chased near-unanimity to feel safe. The practical problem was obvious: a small group of hold-outs, or even one or two flats being sold or in dispute, could freeze a genuinely needed redevelopment for years.

The 4 July 2019 directive re-set the consent bar at 51% of total membership. The trade-off is deliberate: a lower consent number, but wrapped in far stricter procedural safeguards (video recording, a government officer present, developer bank guarantee, registered agreements). In other words, the State made it easier to reach the majority but harder to abuse the process.

Source: Government of Maharashtra directive under Section 79A of the MCS Act, 1960, dated 4 July 2019, superseding the directive dated 3 January 2009.

If you are reading an older agreement or an old society resolution that quotes 70%, treat it as superseded — the current binding figure is 51% of total membership. On a 40-member society that is the difference between needing 28 yes votes (70% of 40) and needing 21 — seven members' worth of headroom.

One caution before you file that 70% away for good. A different 70% is still live, on a different base: when the plans go to MCGM, the development-permission checklist asks for a certificate that at least 70% of the members present at the SGBM approved the redevelopment. It is not 70% of your register and it does not raise the 51% consent bar — but it does mean the room has to be convincingly in favour, not just past the line. That requirement is set out in full further down, under the conditions that travel with the 51%.

Work out your own numbers: two worked examples and a lookup table

Say your society, "Sunrise CHS", has 40 members on its register. Here is how each threshold is calculated:

Now watch how the two gates interact. Suppose 30 members attend — quorum is cleared (30 is above 27). Of those 30, if 21 or more vote yes, redevelopment is approved. But if only 19 vote yes and 11 vote no or abstain, the meeting had quorum yet failed the 51% test, because 19 is below the 21 needed out of the full 40. The absent 10 members did not help — they are still in the denominator.

Notice the squeeze in the second-last line above. If your attendance is only just at quorum, you have very little room: at 27 present you can afford six objections, no more. Every extra member you bring into the hall buys you another possible yes vote, which is why committees chase attendance, not just agreement.

Find your society's size in the table below and read across. It gives you all three thresholds, plus the two numbers committees actually argue about — how many members can stay away, and how many objections you can absorb if attendance is only just at quorum.

Source: Government of Maharashtra directive under Section 79A of the MCS Act, 1960, dated 4 July 2019. All figures rounded up to the next whole member.

If your membership is not in the table, do the same three sums yourself: multiply by 0.2 for the requisition, by 0.667 for quorum, by 0.51 for consent, and round every answer up to the next whole member. "Not less than" 51% means you cannot fall short even by a fraction — 20.4 members is 21 members, never 20.

What happens to the other 49% — the members who did not vote yes

This is the half of the arithmetic nobody explains. In the 40-member society, 21 yes votes carry the resolution. That leaves up to 19 members who voted no, abstained or never came. In a 100-member society the figure is 49 members. They are not thrown out of the calculation and they are not thrown out of the society.

Three things follow, in plain terms:

• They stay members, with the same flat entitlement. The 4 July 2019 directive requires a registered PAAA with each member — not only with the ones who voted in favour. A member who voted no still signs their own PAAA covering their new flat, rent during construction, corpus and shifting/hardship compensation. Voting no does not forfeit the entitlement.
• They keep a legal route. A member who believes the notice, the quorum count, the register or the developer selection was irregular can raise a dispute before the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act, 1960. That is a challenge to the process, not a personal veto over a properly passed resolution.
• They are still in your denominator next time. If the vote fails and you reconvene, the base stays at 40 or 100. Nothing about the failed meeting lowers the bar.

The practical lesson from the last column of the table: a 51% majority is a thin one. In a 40-member society approved by exactly 21 votes, a single member changing their mind, or one membership being disputed and struck off the register, moves you straight to the wrong side of the line. Committees that finish with a comfortable margin — say 28 or 30 of 40 rather than 21 — face far fewer challenges later.

51% is necessary but not sufficient: the conditions that travel with it

A common and dangerous myth is that "once we have 51%, we are done". The consent figure is only one condition in the 4 July 2019 directive. The redevelopment is protected only if the whole package is followed:

• The shortlisted developer must have at least one MahaRERA-registered project to its name.
• The developer must furnish a bank guarantee of 20% of the project value.
• The Development Agreement (DA) and each member's Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) must be registered. (The PAAA is the individual agreement guaranteeing each member their new flat, rent during construction, corpus and hardship compensation.)
• An authorised officer of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies must attend the developer-selection meeting, which must be video-recorded.
• No managing committee member, or a relative of one, may be the developer — a direct bar on self-dealing.
• A completion date must be written into the agreement. The consent rule itself does not fix how long construction may take — what binds the developer is the date the society negotiates into the registered DA and PAAA. Societies commonly negotiate completion within 2 to 3 years of the plinth Commencement Certificate (CC), with rent and a delay penalty continuing until actual handover. (The "plinth CC" is the municipal permission to build above foundation level; it is the practical start of the construction clock.) If your draft agreement has no dated deadline and no penalty, that is the clause to fix before you sign.

One further requirement catches committees late, at the plan-submission stage, and it is worth reading before the vote rather than after. Regulation 10(3)(ii) of DCPR 2034 lists the documents MCGM wants with a development-permission application. For a plot owned by a co-operative society, clause (g) asks for an advocate's certificate confirming that the society has entered into a registered agreement with the developer, and that at least 70% of the members present at the Special General Body Meeting convened for the purpose approved the redevelopment and consented in favour of the applicant. Read that base carefully — it is 70% of the members in the room, not 70% of the register. It does not raise or replace the 79A test of 51% of total membership; you have to satisfy both, and they are counted differently.

The arithmetic is easy to check on the 40-member example. At a bare quorum of 27 present, 70% of 27 is 18.9, so 19 of those present must approve — and the 79A test already demands 21, so a clean vote clears both comfortably. But if all 40 members attend and exactly 21 vote yes, that is only 52.5% of the room: the 79A threshold is met and the MCGM certificate still cannot be given. The safe working rule for the day: get your 21 of 40 and at least 70% of whoever is actually in the hall. Record attendance and the vote count in the minutes so both figures can be certified later.

Because the developer must already hold a MahaRERA project and the new building itself will normally be RERA-registered, RERA duties sit on top of the 79A consent process rather than replacing it. One point of law is worth knowing: where a society undertakes the development itself rather than handing it to a developer, the society steps into the promoter's role and carries the promoter's obligations under RERA, and registration is required for a project of the notified size. Self-redevelopment lightens nobody's paperwork — it moves it onto the society.

How the 51% rule changes for different building types

Ordinary co-operative housing societies (the standard case)

For a normal registered housing society redeveloping on its own plot, the 4 July 2019 directive applies as described above — 1/5th requisition, 2/3rd quorum, 51% of total membership. This is the situation most Mumbai societies are in.

Cessed and old buildings (MHADA route, DCPR 33(7))

Old, rent-controlled "cessed" buildings in the Island City are redeveloped under Regulation 33(7) of DCPR 2034, through MHADA and the Mumbai Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB). The regulation covers cessed buildings in the Island City existing prior to 30 September 1969, and Corporation buildings of the same vintage.

Regulation 33(7) carries its own consent figure, and it is also 51%. The regulation says the new building may be permitted on the irrevocable written consent of not less than 51% of the occupiers of the old building. The regulation as amended brought this down from the earlier 70%. The list of eligible occupiers and the consents themselves are certified by the MBRRB.

So the percentage matches the 79A figure, but the base and the authority do not. Under the 79A directive you count members on the society's register and deal with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Under Regulation 33(7) you count occupiers of the old building — many of whom are protected tenants, not owner-members — and the counting is certified by MBRRB. Two other differences follow from that: the consent must be in writing and irrevocable, so a signed consent cannot simply be withdrawn later, and there is no separate 2/3rd quorum test in the regulation, because it is a count of consents rather than a meeting vote.

What each occupier receives under 33(7) is fixed by the regulation, not negotiated. Each occupant is rehoused with the carpet area actually occupied in the old building, subject to a floor of 27.88 sq m (300 sq ft) carpet and a ceiling of up to 120 sq m (1,292 sq ft) carpet. Where the area actually occupied exceeds 120 sq m, the occupant pays the developer the cost of construction for the excess at that year's Annual Schedule of Rates, and that excess does not earn incentive FSI. A residential-cum-commercial occupier is entitled to a minimum of 27.88 sq m (300 sq ft). A non-residential occupier gets area equivalent to what was occupied in the old building.

The FSI is banded too, so a committee can see roughly where it sits before any developer quotes a number. Under 33(7) the total FSI is 3.00 on the gross plot area, or the FSI needed to rehouse the existing occupiers plus incentive FSI, whichever is more — the society gets the better of the two:

The 70% tier also applies to redevelopment of municipal properties under this regulation where the eligible tenement density is more than 650 per hectare. Note the plot count carefully: the jump to 70% needs six plots, not three. Older write-ups that say "three or more" are quoting the draft regulation, which was amended before sanction.

Which band you land in is decided by how many cessed plots join the scheme, the carpet area each occupier actually holds today, and your gross plot area. Only the first of those is under your control, and it is worth real money: bringing neighbouring cessed plots into a composite scheme moves the incentive from 50% to 60% at two to five plots, or to 70% at six or more, and lifts the extra rehab carpet from nothing to 8% or 15% for every occupier.

That is a concrete reason to talk to the buildings on either side of you before you start. The extra carpet is still subject to the 120 sq m ceiling, so an occupier already at or near that ceiling gains nothing from the percentage — the benefit is largest for mid-sized tenements.

Source: DCPR 2034, Regulation 33(7) (reconstruction or redevelopment of cessed buildings in the Island City), applicable to Greater Mumbai (MCGM).

If your building is cessed, read the dedicated explainer on DCR/DCPR 33(7) cessed-building redevelopment before applying the plain society 51% figure — the list you count and the authority that certifies it are not the same.

SRA / slum redevelopment (DCPR 33(10))

Slum redevelopment under the SRA runs on Regulation 33(10) of DCPR 2034, which has its own consent rule, separate from the co-operative society directive. The base you count is eligible hutment-dwellers, not society memberships. (Take the regulation number from the sanctioned text: 33(14) of DCPR 2034 deals with shifting cattle sheds out of Greater Mumbai, not with slums.)

The percentage is set in the regulation itself. Where 51% or more of the eligible hutment-dwellers in a slum — and in any stretch of road or pavement next to it — agree to join a rehabilitation scheme, the scheme may be taken up for approval. Their agreements must be in writing and irrevocable, and submitted before the Letter of Intent (LOI) is issued (Regulation 33(10), clause 1.15). Eligible dwellers who do not join are still provided for in the rehabilitation component; they are not left out of the scheme.

What each eligible dweller receives is fixed rather than negotiated: a free-of-cost residential tenement of 27.88 sq m (300 sq ft) carpet area, including balcony, bath and water closet but excluding common areas. A dweller whose existing structure is bigger still gets 27.88 sq m — the entitlement does not scale up with what was occupied. A non-residential structure gets its existing area or a maximum of 20.90 sq m, whichever is less. So in an SRA scheme the argument is normally about eligibility and money, not about the size of the rehab flat.

On money, the SRA figure is Rs 40,000 per rehab tenement (or such amount as the authority decides), to be deposited with the SRA by the developer — and the last 25% of the free-sale building gets no building permission until it is paid in full. Do not confuse it with the Rs 50,000 per tenement corpus in a 33(9) cluster scheme below. Same idea, different regulation, different figure — always name the regulation when you quote it.

Source: DCPR 2034 (sanctioned), Regulation 33(10) — Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, applicable to Greater Mumbai (MCGM).

Cluster / federation redevelopment

Where several societies redevelop together — a cluster or urban-renewal scheme under Regulation 33(9) — each participating society still has to clear the 79A gates on its own: its own requisition, its own 2/3rd quorum and its own 51% of total membership voting in favour. One society's majority does not carry another's. Count every society separately and get every one of them over the line before the scheme is assembled.

Approvals also move up a level. A 33(9) scheme is decided by a High Power Committee headed by the Municipal Commissioner, with the prior sanction of Government, and that decision is appealable in the manner provided by Section 47 of the MR&TP Act, 1966. Build the extra approval time into your expectations from the start.

Four numbers are worth knowing before you agree to a 33(9) cluster scheme in Greater Mumbai:

• The promoter must create a corpus fund of at least Rs 50,000 per tenement (or as directed by the High Power Committee), earmarked for maintaining the rehabilitation buildings for 10 years. For a 200-tenement cluster that is a minimum corpus of Rs 1,00,00,000 (Rs 1 crore) — a floor, not a target. Good offers sit well above it, and it is one of the first things to compare across competing bids.
• Where the cluster takes in tenanted buildings, the consent MCGM asks to see at plan-submission stage is a certificate from MHADA or the land-owning authority that at least 51% of the certified and eligible tenants of each building, or 60% of the eligible tenants overall, have given irrevocable consent (DCPR 2034, Regulation 10(3)(ii)(f)). Under Regulation 33(7) the same clause asks only for the 51%-per-building certificate. So a cluster gives you a second route — a building that is short of 51% on its own can still be carried if the scheme clears 60% across the whole cluster.
• If a heritage structure is included in the scheme, a Heritage Cess of 5% of the ASR is charged on its built-up area.
• Tenements constructed for slum rehabilitation are non-transferable for 10 years.

An ongoing 33(7) cessed scheme that meets the criteria can be brought into, or converted into, a 33(9) cluster scheme — but any dilution of reservations allowed under 33(7) has to be restored first.

Source: DCPR 2034, Regulation 33(9) (Urban Renewal Scheme / Cluster Development), applicable to Greater Mumbai (MCGM). Areas outside Greater Mumbai follow the UDCPR instead.

Very small buildings

Under RERA Section 3(2), a project on land up to 500 sq m or with up to 8 apartments is exempt from separate MahaRERA project registration. That can apply to a small society's new building — but note two things: the 79A consent process still applies in full, and the directive still requires your chosen developer to have a MahaRERA-registered project elsewhere. Small size lightens the RERA filing, not the consent discipline.

Before you vote: the FSI figures your society should already know

The 51% vote approves a deal, and the deal is only as good as the FSI your plot can legally carry. For an ordinary society — not cessed, not a slum scheme — that figure is not a matter of negotiation. It is fixed by Table 12 of Regulation 30(A) of the sanctioned DCPR 2034, and the single input that decides it is the width of the road your plot abuts.

Source: DCPR 2034 (sanctioned), Regulation 30(A), Table 12. Permissible FSI = zonal (basic) FSI + additional FSI on payment of premium + admissible TDR. Lower basic FSI applies in a few defined pockets of the suburbs: 0.75 for the BARC-earmarked area of M Ward, and 0.50 for the villages of Akse and Marve and the CRZ-affected area of Erangal in P/North Ward, excluding gaothan proper.

Watch the 9 metre line — this is where most societies are told the wrong thing. The band reads "less than 9 m" for basic FSI, and "9 m and above but less than 12.00 m" for the step up. So a road measuring exactly 9.00 m sits in the higher band. A suburban plot on a 9.00 m road carries permissible FSI 2.00, not 1.00 — double. In the Island City it is 2.00 against a basic 1.33. Only a road narrower than 9 m holds you at basic FSI. Nine metres is one of the commonest layout widths in Mumbai, so if anyone tells your committee that a 9 m road caps you at basic FSI, ask them to read the band again.

Two more figures from the same regulation change what a developer can afford to offer you:

• Premium is charged at 50% of the ASR land rate for FSI 1, for the year in which the FSI is granted (Regulation 30(A)(6)). The 60% figure still quoted in many feasibility notes comes from the draft. Using 60% overstates the premium cost by a fifth, which makes the surplus — and therefore your share — look smaller than it is.
• FSI is computed on the net plot, not the gross plot (Regulation 30(A)(2)). Take out land under DP roads, land under a sanctioned Regular Line under the MMC Act, Regulation 16 road land, Regulation 14 amenity plots and any Regulation 17 DP reservation to be surrendered. That land is not simply lost — TDR for it is separately available under Regulation 32, Table 12(A) — but it does not sit inside the FSI multiplication.

Get three inputs on paper before the SGBM — net plot area, road width and zone. They set the size of the cake that 51% of your members are about to vote on, and they are all verifiable from documents you already hold. Our FSI calculator runs the same sums for your plot.

What this means for your society

Practically, the 51% rule turns redevelopment from a hostage situation into a manageable majority decision — provided you run it correctly. Three habits protect you:

1. Fix your denominator early. Reconcile the Register of Members with the audited membership list so everyone agrees what "100%" is. Your bye-laws (based on the Model Bye-Laws 2014) govern how members are counted and how the SGBM is called.
2. Follow the sequence, not just the number. Requisition → notice → quorum → developer shortlisting with the Registrar's officer present and camera rolling → 51% vote → registered DA and PAAAs. Skipping a step is the usual reason a project is challenged.
3. Compare offers on the same yardstick before you vote. The 51% decision is only as good as the deal it approves, and the deal is driven by the FSI your plot can carry. Those figures are banded, not arbitrary. An ordinary society is read off Table 12 by road width — 2.00 from 9.00 m upward in both the Island City and the suburbs, rising to 2.40 or 2.20 from 12.00 m, 2.70 or 2.40 from 18.00 m, and 3.00 or 2.50 at 27 m and above; only a road narrower than 9 m holds you at basic 1.33 or 1.00. A single cessed plot under 33(7) gets a total FSI of 3.00 on the gross plot area, or rehabilitation FSI plus 50% incentive FSI, whichever is more — rising to 60% for a composite scheme of 2 to 5 plots and 70% where six or more plots join, with 8% or 15% extra rehab carpet to every occupier. Under 33(10) an eligible slum dweller gets a fixed 27.88 sq m (300 sq ft) carpet tenement. What decides your own position inside those bands is your road width, your net plot area after surrenders, how many plots join the scheme and the carpet each occupier holds today. Put those inputs into the FSI calculator, then compare the resulting offers side by side with our developer offer comparison tool.

If your committee is at the starting line and wants the process handled cleanly from requisition to registered agreements, you can register your society with us for structured guidance — a low-pressure way to make sure your 51% is built on solid ground.

Where to find the official rule

The consent thresholds are set by the Government of Maharashtra, Co-operation, Marketing & Textiles Department directive under Section 79A of the MCS Act, 1960, dated 4 July 2019, which superseded the 3 January 2009 directive. You can obtain the directive from the Co-operation Department's records or your District Deputy Registrar's office. A developer's MahaRERA project registration can be verified on the official MahaRERA portal, and the new building's own registration (where required under RERA Section 3) will appear there too. Always confirm figures against the latest official text, as directives are periodically updated.