Since it is one society they cannot be calked upon to pay more maintenance
all members have to pay equal maintenance irrespective of size of flats
best option is to form separate society fir the new building flat owners
Merging of new members and maintenance charges
Post conveyance deed, our society implemented a solar system which resulted in handsome savings keeping the monthly maintenance reasonably low. Saved money was again wisely invested into mutual funds and FDs. A newly built building's members are yet to be added to existing society. The builder has transferred corpus funds to our existing society. The new building does not have solar. Their monthly expenses are more as compared to existing buildings. After adding them as new members, our existing maintenance charges will be applicable them as well ie one unit one maintenance. Can we ask for a difference amount to them before getting as members. The difference is total savings done by our existing society in the last 12 years while keeping maintenance low. Individual contributions will be total savings divided by the number of old members. Need expert advise.
Asked 3 months ago in Property Law
Religion: Hindu
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
8 Answers
No, you cannot legally charge new members a difference amount for the 12 years of accumulated savings from solar investments.
Legal Restrictions
The Bombay High Court clearly ruled that housing societies cannot charge admission fees beyond statutory amounts. Any fee must have "legal sanction under the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act" and membership is considered "open membership".
Permitted Charges Only
What you can charge new members:
-
Entrance fee: ₹100
-
Transfer premium: Maximum ₹25,000 (for property transfers)
-
Regular maintenance charges (same as all members)
What you cannot charge:
-
Additional fees for accumulated savings or infrastructure improvements
-
Differential amounts to "equalize" past contributions
Current Maintenance Rules
Recent rulings mandate uniform maintenance charges for all society members regardless of flat size or historical contributions. The "one unit, one maintenance" approach means identical charges for everyone.
Alternative Solutions
Instead of charging difference amounts:
-
Adjust overall maintenance uniformly for all members to account for increased expenses
-
Use corpus funds appropriately for infrastructure improvements
-
Consult a cooperative society lawyer for legal restructuring options
Bottom line: The accumulated savings cannot be recovered from new members through additional charges, as this lacks legal backing under Maharashtra cooperative housing laws.
Check what your society's bylaws say on such matters. If they are silent, you need to call for an extra-ordinary general meeting and pass a resolution to amend the bylaws suitably.
This is a very practical and sensitive issue that many housing societies face when a new wing/building is added to an existing registered co-operative sIf you calculate "12 years of savings ÷ old members" and demand the same from each new member, it will amount to a retrospective levy, which is not supported under co-operative law.
Once merged, all members should pay equal maintenance as per the bye-laws.
Instead of recovering from the new members, the builder can be asked (if still within his obligations) to install solar in the new building or make a compensatory contribution to society funds.
Until solar is extended to the new building, you may create different heads of expenses (solar vs. non-solar) in your accounts.
Members of the new building can be charged actuals for electricity, while older buildings continue to benefit from solar.
A claim of adverse possession by co-owners against each other—where two siblings have not lived in the jointly owned family property for twenty years—is generally not maintainable under Indian law without evidence of “ouster” and clear denial of title. Mere physical absence or non-use by some co-owners, while others occupy the residence, does not automatically extinguish their legal rights or transfer ownership through adverse possession. Possession by one co-owner is legally possession for all unless there is hostile, exclusive possession by way of denial, public assertion of title, and knowledge clearly communicated to the non-resident co-owners.
In the absence of such “ouster”—meaning a clear, overt act showing intent to exclude and deny the rights of the non-occupant co-owners—their property rights continue unaffected despite their absence. Courts require specific evidence beyond non-possession, such as assertion of exclusive ownership, changes in title records, or hostile acts, to establish a valid adverse possession claim among co-owners. In summary, simply living in a house for years does not, by itself, allow co-owners to claim adverse possession against other co-owners on title who do not live there.
You cannot legally charge the new members for the 12 years of savings enjoyed by existing members. Those funds are society’s collective property. Once admitted, they will have equal rights in it. The safer path is to admit them on the same terms, levy uniform maintenance, and if required, raise specific additional charges for new facilities or corpus contributions as per bye-laws.
You can ask for difference maintenance amount if they are members of same society
Dear Client,
Legally, once the new building members are admitted into the society after conveyance and corpus transfer, they must be treated as equal members with the same rights and obligations, which means you cannot retrospectively ask them to pay a “catch-up” or equalization amount for the last 12 years of savings and investments, as those were decisions taken and enjoyed by existing members over time; instead, the practical and lawful course is to admit them on the same footing, merge the builder’s corpus into society funds, and through a general body resolution decide how best to extend benefits like solar or structure future maintenance charges fairly so that all members old and new share equitably in the society’s expenses and savings.
I hope this answer helps, for any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank You
