Apartment Owners Cannot Avoid Maintenance Charges Merely Because No Separate Agreement Was Signed: Punjab RERA
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently ruled that apartment owners cannot refuse to pay maintenance charges merely because they did not sign a separate maintenance agreement.
The obligation arises from the buyer's agreement and Section 19(6) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Allowing a complaint filed by Fortune Multitech Private Limited, the authority directed two apartment owners to pay ₹2,85,472 towards outstanding maintenance charges and interest for the Victoria Heights residential project in Mohali, Punjab.
Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal observed, “The liability to pay maintenance charges flows from the Buyers Agreement itself signed between the parties. Further, Section 19(6) of the RERD Act, 2016 also requires an allottee to make necessary payments, including maintenance charges. Merely, because a separate maintenance agreement was not executed does not mean that the respondents can avoid payment of maintenance charges.”
The dispute concerned a three-bedroom apartment measuring approximately 1,800 square feet in the Victoria Heights project at Peer Muchalla, Mohali. Under a buyer's agreement dated November 7, 2017, the owners, Rajat Kumar and Rohtash Singh, were required to pay monthly maintenance charges of ₹3,564, along with applicable taxes and an annual escalation of 15%.
Fortune Multitech alleged that the owners failed to pay maintenance charges despite receiving possession. It claimed outstanding dues of ₹4,17,767, including interest and taxes, up to March 1, 2021.
The developer approached the authority under Section 31 of the Act on June 4, 2021, seeking recovery of the dues.
The owners opposed the complaint, alleging deficient maintenance services, inadequate manpower and failure to disclose maintenance accounts. They also argued that no separate maintenance agreement had been executed.
The authority observed that owners were required to pay maintenance charges even if they genuinely believed the charges were excessive. It noted that non-payment created difficulties in maintaining the premises.
It also directed the developer to maintain uniform maintenance rates, provide audited accounts and facilitate the formation of an apartment owners' association.
The authority observed that developers should eventually hand over maintenance responsibilities to residents, stating, “The maintenance of the project is not the primary work of the promoter after it is completed. It should construct and hand over the possession and move further for another construction of a project and let the residents be responsible for the maintenance of completed projects.”
The authority calculated the outstanding maintenance charges at ₹2,10,600 and interest at ₹74,872 up to September 30, 2026, bringing the total to ₹2,85,472.
It directed the owners to pay within 90 days of receiving the order. Further interest of ₹1,895 per month is payable from October 1, 2026, until realisation, in addition to interest calculated at 10.80% on the outstanding principal as specified in the order.
If payment is not made within the prescribed period, a debt recovery certificate will be issued to initiate recovery proceedings.
For Complainant (Fortune Multitech Pvt. Ltd.): Advocate Shivam Grover.
For Respondents (Rajat Kumar and Rohtash Singh): Advocate Parbeen Dharwal.