Hi, I'm from Hyderabad, and am owner of a flat size above average size in our complex - there is a debate about per sft charges vs equal charges - a cliched topic I believe. Our association is registered under Telangana Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act 1995, under which the bye laws have to subscribe to the cooperative principles under Section 3, wherein 3.d specifically discusses the economic aspects as under: ‘the economic results out of the operations (either business or common provisions) have to be distributed among the members in proportion to their transactions with the society, in such a manner avoiding one member gaining at the expense of others’. As per the above reading, my understanding would be: - the ‘economic results’ in our case would be the expenses (less the earnings) incurred, - ‘operations’ pertain to the access and upkeep of the common areas, and - the ‘proportion of transactions‘ has to be equal for all the flats since everyone is accessing/using the common areas equally (unrelated to UDS ownership). So should not the common area charges be allocated equally to all the flat owners? Is it morally acceptable for charging expenses based on a variable (UDS or flat size) which has no relevance in the actual usage - is it some sort of informal tax? If flat size has a relevance in the common area, in operational sense - why can't the bigger flats claim rents on the excess common area they own above the mean size? I read that the Telangana Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 has a clause mentioning that the common area charges can be apportioned based on the percentage ownership in the common area. My understanding (I could be wrong) is earlier the common area was allocated equally but of late the builders are allocating based on flat size and hence the commotion/debates. I want to understand the relationship between the Apartments Act and the Cooperative Act - is there any parent-child relation? Thanks, Sasi.
First answer received in 10 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
Cooperatives societies act is only applicable to housing societies wherein maintenance is equal irrespective of size of flat
2) the bye laws adopted by housing society contain provisions regarding maintenance payable by members
3) apartments act is applicable to condominium wherein maintenance depends upon size of flats .
4) bye laws adopted would contain provisions regarding maintenance payable
5) maintenance can be equal for all members if bye laws adopted contained such a provision
That's absolutely right
Maintenance has to be divided equally among all the members regardless of their flat size simply because all use the common areas equally
Say for example a member having flat of small area would NOT be using the common security to any lesser extent
In other words he would be using the security services equally with owners of flats of bigger areas
So the computation of maintenence charges by builders based on flat size is totally idiotic and illogical
The objection has to be raised at the earliest since if not taken it will continue when the society is formed and builder hands over the management to society. Then same old drama of arguments in society meetings will happen
It's all about common sense and there is no any law required for it
Infact there is a judgment to this effect by the Bombay High Court
@Ajay Sethi, Thanks for your response, but little confused by it, as you seem to be suggesting that our maintenance will decide which Act will govern us. Whatever be the act, should not anything marked 'common' should be allocated equally? @Yusuf, Yes, I see only mischief whenever any legal loopholes are put in place in spite of wide misuse. We are in the process of handover from the builder, and hence the tussle between the owners, majority numbers is obviously with the 2BHK owners. I had seen the Venus CHS case judgement in Bombay HC. What I was little unclear is its validity in Telangana (when it has its own laws). There is a case from Hyderabad (Indiabulls Centrum) which is now in Delhi HC - at the District consumer forum the judgement was in favour of the equal distribution but in State forum it was in favour of per sft distribution - I'm eagerly awaiting its judgement in Delhi HC. I had seen that Maharashtra's model bye laws under Coop Societies Act had thorough break down of which expenses should be charged equally and which per sft basis - this was as fair as one could expect. What I'm looking for right now is: 1. If there is any relationship/primacy between the Telangana Apartments Act 1987 (pro UDS expense) and the TG MACS Act 1995 (pro equal/co-operative expense)? Our association is registered under MACS Act. 2. Can the Bombay HC judgement (Venus CHS case) be called into arguments in Telangana, especially when Telangana has 2 separate laws which are putting forward contradictory principles in nature?
The provisions of act and be laws adopted determine maintenance charges payable by you for common areas
2) judgment of Bombay high court has persuasive value only and is not binding in Telangana
3) if yiu are governed by societies act of your state it would contain provisions regarding maintenance payable by all members for common areas
The common area charges should not be based on flat area as the service is common to all. It should be divided as per No of flats in building. Only the services which are based on flat sizes like property tax can be divided as per flat areas
Although there is no specific rule for deciding maintenance charges for common areas in an apartment in Telangana, the general norm followed is the maintenance fee being charged per sqft owned by each apartment owner,
In some cases, where the square footage owned by different owners varies to a small extent, the owners’ associations tend to split the maintenance equally among all apartments.
the Telangana Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 also mandates that a society needs to levy maintenance charges in proportion to the size or area of the flat held by owners.
“However, a few societies also follow the practice of levying equal maintenance charges from all flat owners irrespective of the size and area of the flat. This practice as such illegal and can be questioned in a court of law,
Conflict among residents of apartment societies often emerges as currently there is no law providing for a specific method for determining maintenance charges. In the absence of a clear-cut law, the existing association of residents, which is commonly an elected body, becomes the deciding authority.
The law governing regulations of Apartments in the state Telangana Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987.
As per RERA rules in Telangana, the promoter/builder is responsible for providing and maintaining essential services in the project until the maintenance is taken over by the association of allottees. The cost of maintenance is to be borne by both the Promoter and the Allottees proportionate to the plots/apartments/buildings in their respective occupation.
The Bombay high court judgment is meant for the case under which this judgment was pronounced, it may not be applicable to your case and you cannot quote that as a ruling because your situation is different to that of the case before Bombay high court.
The provision of law quoted by you is given below which clearly states what to be done:
(d) the economic results, arising out of the operations of a Co-operative Societies belong to the members of that Co-operative Societies and shall be distributed in such a manners as would avoid one member gaining at the expense of others, which shall be achieved,-
(i) by provision for development of the business of the Co-operative Society;
(ii) by provision of common services; or
(iii) by distribution among the members in proportion to their transactions with the Co-operative Society;
1. if association is registered under the societies act, then equal division of expenses applies. I need to study the Apartment Ownership Act as that has the concept of certain undivided %/share in the common areas which is enjoyed by the apartment owners. but in my view the logic and principle [on a prima facie view] would remain the same, regardless under which act the association of flat purchasers is registered
2. the Bombay HC judgment, though not binding on the Telangana HC, it does have persuasive value
@Ajay Sethi, @Prashant, Thanks for your responses and clarification. ******************* @Kalaiselvan, Thanks for your response sir. I had my apprehensions is quoting the Bombay HC judgements, but it should be having persuasive power (obviously to those willing to hear) - yet I contend tha the situation is very much similar to our case. I did not understand your inpterpretation of the Coop Society Act - are you in agreement about about the costs to be equally shared for equal transactions? About the Apt Act, I understood about the clause mentioning the expenses to be shared on per sft basis (I guess it is there is some other states as well) - but I would like to understand how could that be fair under natural law, where I share my resource with others and pay for its maintenance without any rent in return (if there is difference in UDS in common area)? This is essentially a question of 'rights vs responsibility'. Irrespectively, I re-read the Apt Act (Chap1, Sec2), which mentions that the Chap-3 (which has Sec20 suggesting about per sft charges) will be applicable only if all owners give a Declaration submitting to the Chapter - can I still be forced under it if I disagree? ******************* @Yusuf, Thanks for the clarification. About the Apartments Act, I had a re-reading, and its opening clauses (Chap1, Sec2) mention that Chapter 3 (under which Section 20 exists, which talks about common expenses based on per sft basis) will be only applicable if all the owners give declaration stating that they accept the Chapter. Only the remaining chapters would be overriding any other law. In fact, I feel Sec20 is unconstitutional (imbalance in rights vs responsibility). So my understanding would be that I can ignore the mentioned Chapter 3 in the Apartments Act, which I disagree with, and follow the cooperative principles as under the Cooperative Society Act (under which our society is registered). Thanks, Sasi.
Thanks for your appreciation
2) it is in your interest to convince other flat owners to register society under cooperative society act of your state wherein maintenance is equal for all flat owners
3) the provisions of act and bye laws adopted are binding on all flat owners
4) if you are registered under apartment act you will have to pay maintenance depending upon area of your flat
5) you cannot ignore provisions of apartment act and pay maintenance under society act if registration I s under apartment act
6) in your case if registered under society act then all flat owners have to pay equal maintenance
You can follow the bylaws of the cooperative society in this context.
If at all you are aggrieved over the ignorance of your contentions in this regard, you may decide to escalate the matter legally before the appropriate forum for relief and remedy.
if your society is registered under the societies act then the apartments act will not apply
so the maintenance in your case has to be divided equally among all the members save and except the property tax which is computed on basis of the area and the water consumption which is as per usage per flat
as regards constitutionality of s.20 of the apartments act, i have not read that act in which that section occurs
Yes absolutely
Dear client,
The issue of charging common area maintenance fees in housing societies often leads to debates and disagreements. Your understanding of the cooperative principles under the Telangana Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act 1995 seems sound, emphasizing the equitable distribution of expenses among members based on their usage of common areas, rather than their flat size or unit entitlement. Regarding the relationship between the Telangana Apartments Act 1987 and the TG MACS Act 1995, they may not have a direct parent-child relationship but could operate in parallel or intersect in matters related to housing societies and common area maintenance. The Telangana Apartments Act might specify certain guidelines or provisions for charging common area maintenance based on unit entitlement (UDS), which could conflict with the cooperative principles outlined in the TG MACS Act, favoring equal distribution. The Bombay HC judgment, like the Venus CHS case you mentioned, might serve as a reference or precedent in arguments related to housing society maintenance fee disputes, even in Telangana, as judgments from higher courts often carry weight and can be referred to for legal reasoning or arguments. Your perspective seems to lean towards the cooperative principles advocated by the TG MACS Act, which emphasize fairness and equal distribution of expenses based on usage rather than flat size. You could argue that the cooperative principles supersede any conflicting provisions in the Apartments Act, especially when it comes to ensuring fairness and avoiding one member benefiting at the expense of others. You can reach out to us for further assistance
