The Bombay High Court has upheld the interpretation that apartment owners in a condominium registered under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 must contribute to common maintenance expenses in proportion to their undivided interest, which is directly linked to the size of their individual apartments. The decision arose from a challenge filed by residents of Treasure Park, a residential complex in Pune comprising 11 buildings and 356 units, where a General Body resolution had imposed equal maintenance charges on all owners regardless of their flat size. A group of owners of smaller two‑bedroom units approached the Deputy Registrar of the Co‑operative Societies to complain that the uniform billing violated Section 10 of the Apartment Act. The Deputy Registrar issued an order directing that maintenance fees must be levied in proportion to each owner’s undivided share of the common areas. This ruling was confirmed by the Co‑operative Court, and the matter eventually reached the Bombay High Court.
The petitioners, owners of larger 3‑ and 4‑bedroom units, contested the orders. They argued that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to pass the order as the Apartment Act prescribed that only the Registrar — as defined under Section 16A — held such authority. They contended there was no explicit delegation of powers to the Deputy Registrar. The petitioners further asserted that since all apartment owners enjoy common amenities equally — such as gyms, parks, and security services — uniform maintenance charges were a fair and accepted norm, supported by prior General Body resolutions. They challenged the foundation of the levying practice, asserting that a flat’s physical size does not translate into greater benefit or use of services, and therefore, imposing proportional billing was unjustified.
The High Court examined Section 10 of the Apartment Act, which expressly provides that any profits from the common property shall be distributed among apartment owners and that common expenses shall be charged in accordance with their percentage of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities. The court also reviewed the apartment complex’s registered Deed of Declaration (dated July 29, 2011, and supplemented on May 31, 2017), which unambiguously stipulated that each apartment owner’s share of maintenance corpus and expenses is to be calculated based on apartment size, as reflected in the Maintenance Corpus Fund contributions. Clause 8(XVIII) of the declaration calculated the undivided shares proportionate to the carpet area and value of each unit, and these shares were linked to higher voting rights in the condominium management.
On the jurisdiction point, the court upheld the Deputy Registrar’s authority. It relied on state notifications issued under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, which conferred powers of the Registrar to the district Deputy Registrar, except those explicitly excluded. This delegation satisfied statutory requirements and conferred legitimacy. The court held that this delegated authority extended to issuing orders under the Apartment Act, including determining maintenance charges.
Rejecting the petitioners’ contention that equal use of amenities justified flat equal charges, the court pointed out that owners of larger units derive greater legal stake in the property via undivided interest. It ruled that enjoyment of amenities is irrelevant to legal liability, which must follow ownership interest, not usage metrics. This was consistent with prior jurisprudence recognizing that statutory ownership determines financial liability.
The court also emphasized that past billing practices or General Body resolutions cannot override statutory law or deed provisions. It declared that informal resolutions adopted by majority members do not have the power to nullify explicit statutory mandates. The petitioners had benefited from the unequal system for several years, but the High Court found that this did not entitle them to exemption when legal compliance was due.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav, writing the judgment, underscored that proportional maintenance billing is both a statutory requirement and a contractual obligation embedded in the registered Deed of Declaration. He noted that registered instruments hold binding force and cannot be disregarded without proper statutory amendment. Lower flat owners, who challenged the regime, had done so legitimately under Section 10, and their relief followed the legal framework rather than subjective notions of fairness.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld the Deputy Registrar’s and the Co‑operative Court’s decisions, and directed that maintenance charges must be recalculated and billed proportionately in line with the undivided interest percentages determined by flat size. The judgment reaffirmed that under the Apartment Act framework, financial obligations correspond to legal ownership interest, and deviations through informal local governance measures cannot supplant legislative intent.
This decision resolves ambiguity prevailing in condominiums governed by the Apartment Act across Maharashtra, particularly those whose associations have followed long-standing equal maintenance practices. It mandates immediate compliance and ensures that future maintenance liabilities align with statutory calculations. The ruling confirms that the law grants differential rights—and obligations—based on undivided interest proportions, irrespective of perceived usage parity.
By affirming statutory primacy over informal norms, the Bombay High Court has reinforced transparent, equitable, and legally consistent maintenance regimes in apartment ownership structures, strengthening the principles of property law and legislative integrity in the housing sector.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.