The Bombay High Court has recently delivered a significant judgment on how maintenance charges in condominiums and apartments must be calculated under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (MAOA). The Court held that charges should be levied proportionate to the size of each flat and not equally across all residents, thereby reinforcing the principle of fairness and statutory compliance.
Background of the Case
The case arose from Treasure Park Condominium in Pune, where a resolution had been passed by the general body of owners to levy equal maintenance charges on all flats, irrespective of size. This resolution was challenged by flat owners with larger apartments, who argued that the statutory mandate under Section 10 of MAOA required proportionate contributions based on the area of each flat.
The matter was taken up before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who ruled in favor of proportional charges. The decision was later contested, raising questions on both the validity of the equal-charge resolution and the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar.
Bombay High Court’s Ruling
In its decision in Sachin Malpani v. Nilam Patil, the Bombay High Court clarified:
- Statutory Requirement Prevails – Section 10 of MAOA mandates that every apartment owner’s share in common expenses must be in proportion to the area of their apartment. Any resolution of the general body contrary to this statutory requirement cannot be enforced.
- Jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar – The Court upheld the Deputy Registrar’s jurisdiction under delegated authority to adjudicate disputes related to the implementation of MAOA.
- Invalidity of Equal-Charge Resolutions – The Court struck down the equal-maintenance resolution passed by the Treasure Park Condominium, affirming that statutory law overrides majority resolutions when the two are in conflict.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling has far-reaching implications for apartment owners across Maharashtra:
- Clarity for Condominium Associations – Apartment associations governed by MAOA must ensure that maintenance charges are levied strictly in proportion to flat size.
- Contrast with Co-operative Societies Act – Unlike housing societies governed by the Co-operative Societies Act (where courts have sometimes disallowed size-based charges), condominiums under MAOA now have clear judicial backing for proportional levies.
- Precedent for Future Disputes – This decision will serve as a guiding precedent for similar disputes, ensuring transparency and legal consistency in the calculation of maintenance charges.
Key Takeaways
- Flat size matters – Larger flats must contribute more towards maintenance.
- Law overrides resolutions – Even unanimous resolutions cannot override statutory provisions.
- Jurisdiction affirmed – The Deputy Registrar has the authority to adjudicate disputes under MAOA.
Final Word
The Bombay High Court’s order reinforces the principle that maintenance charges must reflect the proportionate size of apartments under MAOA. For residents, this ensures fairness; for associations, it serves as a legal reminder to align practices with statutory provisions. The ruling in the Treasure Park case will likely influence the way condominiums across Maharashtra calculate and collect their maintenance charges going forward.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their situation.