Homebuyers Cannot Occupy Flat, Derive Benefit And Refuse Maintenance Charges: HP RERA

Holding that homebuyers who continue to occupy a flat and derive benefits from it cannot completely deny liability towards maintenance charges, the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that allottees in the “Himachal One” project at Baddi must pay reasonable maintenance charges.

The Coram of Chairperson R.D. Dhiman and Member Vidur Mehta observed:

“Thus, once the allottee is in possession and is availing services- at least basic in nature- the liability to pay the maintenance cannot be completely denied. In such circumstances, this Authority is of the view that the Complainants cannot take contradictory stands - on one hand enjoying possession of the property and earning benefit from it, and on the other hand denying their liability to pay maintenance charges. A party cannot accept the benefit of a situation and at the same time refuse to fulfill the obligations arising from it.”

However, the Authority also held that Ahlawat Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. could not raise arbitrary maintenance demands while failing to obtain Completion and Occupation Certificates and provide promised statutory amenities.

“The manner of raising demands without proper break-up, transparency, and supporting material- raises concerns regarding the reasonableness of such charges. This Authority is of the considered view that while the Respondent is entitled to recover maintenance charges, such recovery must be strictly in accordance with law. The Respondent cannot levy excessive, arbitrary, or unsupported charges, nor can it impose unreasonable conditions upon the allottees.”

Partly allowing a complaint filed by homebuyers Vipin Kumar Singhal and Parul Singhal against Ahlawat Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., the Authority observed that recovery of dues must be undertaken through lawful means and coercive threats cannot be sustained.

“Insofar as the allegation regarding coercive notices and collection of charges is concerned, it is a settled position that recovery of dues must be undertaken through lawful means and due process. Any threat of cancellation or imposition of conditions beyond the terms of the Agreement for Sale and provisions of the Act cannot be sustained in law.”

Flat No. 103 in Tower A-3 of the “Himachal One” residential project at Baddi was booked by the complainants under an agreement dated September 9, 2015.

After receiving a re-allotment and possession letter dated July 30, 2019, they approached the Authority alleging that the developer had failed to obtain Completion and Occupation Certificates despite handing over possession.

They also alleged that promised amenities, including proper water supply and essential common facilities, had not been provided.

The complainants challenged maintenance demands of ₹3,85,448 and notices threatening withdrawal of services and other adverse consequences for non-payment.

The developer argued that the complainants continued to occupy the flat and had let it out on rent. It said they therefore could not deny liability towards maintenance charges.

Accepting this contention in part, the Authority held that possession without Completion and Occupation Certificates cannot be treated as lawful or complete in the eyes of law.

However, it found that the complainants were undeniably occupying the premises and deriving benefit from it.

It therefore held that complete denial of maintenance liability was untenable.

At the same time, the Authority found that the developer had failed to comply with earlier directions requiring it to obtain Completion and Occupation Certificates.

Referring to the promoter's statutory obligation to provide essential services on reasonable charges, the Authority held that maintenance demands must be reasonable, transparent, and supported by actual services rendered.

It directed Ahlawat Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. to obtain Completion and Occupation Certificates within three months, failing which it would be liable to pay a per-day penalty of ₹2,000.

The authority also directed the developer to convene a general body meeting of the RWA/association of allottees within one month before fixing maintenance charges.

It clarified that once determined, allottees would be bound to pay the same every month within the specified time.

For Complainants (Vipin Kumar Singhal and Parul Singhal): Advocates Rajesh Kumar and Aastha Sharma.

For Respondent (Ahlawat Developers and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.): Advocates Sanjeev Bhushan and Raghav Sharma.