With reference to your query regarding the demand being raised by the Apartment Owners' Association/Management Committee for payment of ₹3,000 for every additional seven days of renovation, increasing to ₹12,000 for 14 days and thereafter, despite a security deposit of ₹25,000 having already been paid, the legality of the demand will depend primarily upon the registered Declaration, the registered Bye-laws, the source of the Association's power to impose such a charge, and the manner in which the particular resolution was adopted.

The clause you have subsequently provided, namely Clause 22 of the Deed of Declaration, does not by itself give the AGM or Management Committee an unrestricted power to impose any monetary demand that it chooses. Clause 22 essentially requires apartment owners to comply with the Declaration, Bye-laws and valid decisions/resolutions of the Association and states that failure to comply can result in proceedings for recovery of sums due, damages or injunctive relief. It does not, by its wording alone, create a specific power to impose an arbitrary ₹3,000/₹12,000 weekly non-refundable penalty for delay in renovation.

The governing statute in Karnataka is the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 (KAOA). Section 7 requires an apartment owner to comply with the covenants, registered Bye-laws and administrative rules and regulations lawfully adopted pursuant to them. At the same time, Section 16 is important because it provides that the administration of the property is governed by the Bye-laws annexed to the Declaration, and that a modification or amendment of a Bye-law is not valid unless it is incorporated in an amendment to the Declaration and duly recorded and filed with the competent authority.

Section 16 also specifically contemplates Bye-laws dealing with the method of adopting administrative rules and regulations concerning the operation and use of common areas and facilities, as well as restrictions intended to prevent unreasonable interference with other apartment owners' use of their apartments and common facilities.

Accordingly, the Association certainly has legitimate authority to regulate renovation work. For example, it can prescribe working hours, require prior permission, regulate movement of labourers and materials, protect lifts and common areas, require debris to be removed, insist upon compliance with structural/safety requirements, and impose a reasonable security deposit to cover demonstrable damage or additional common-area costs. Section 7 also recognises that an apartment owner must comply with lawful Bye-laws and administrative rules.

However, that is different from saying that the Management Committee has an unlimited power to impose a non-refundable and progressively increasing monetary penalty merely because renovation continues beyond 45 days.

The Association should therefore be asked to identify the precise provision in the registered Bye-laws or registered Declaration which authorises this particular charge. If the ₹3,000/₹12,000 escalating amounts were introduced merely through an AGM/MC resolution or circular, without there being an enabling provision in the registered Bye-laws and without the amendment being adopted and recorded in the manner required by the KAOA, there would be a substantial basis to challenge the demand.

The Association's reliance on Clause 22 should therefore be examined carefully. Clause 22 can support enforcement of an existing and lawfully adopted obligation, but it cannot necessarily be used as a standalone source of power to create an entirely new financial liability. The Association cannot reasonably argue that because Clause 22 says owners must comply with resolutions, every financial penalty subsequently invented by the Management Committee automatically becomes legally binding.

The fact that you have already deposited ₹25,000 as a security deposit is also relevant. If the purpose of the deposit is to secure against damage or additional expenses caused by renovation, the Association should be able to explain why a further non-refundable charge is being imposed even where there is no damage to common areas, no obstruction and no demonstrated additional expenditure. The absence of actual damage does not automatically make every renovation-related charge illegal, because a valid Bye-law can potentially prescribe a reasonable administrative charge or penalty; however, the Association must still establish the contractual/statutory source and validity of the charge.

I would therefore not advise you to simply refuse payment verbally. Instead, you should make a written demand for clarification and supporting documents. You should ask the Association to provide:

1. The complete registered Declaration and Bye-laws applicable to your apartment;
2. The specific Bye-law/Declaration provision authorising the ₹3,000/₹12,000 escalating renovation charge;
3. The AGM/MC resolution by which the present charges were introduced;
4. The date and minutes of the meeting in which the resolution was passed;
5. The quorum and voting details of that meeting;
6. The provision under which the Management Committee/AGM was empowered to impose the charge;
7. Whether the resolution was incorporated into an amendment to the registered Declaration/Bye-laws, where required;
8. The basis on which the amount is described as "non-refundable";
9. The basis for progressively increasing the amount every seven days; and
10. The reason for retaining the ₹25,000 security deposit while simultaneously imposing these additional charges.

I would particularly ask them to clarify whether the charge is being described as a security deposit, administrative fee, compensation for additional common-area use, or penalty for violation of a renovation rule. These are legally different concepts and should not be mixed together.

If the Association says that the charge is a "penalty", it should identify the specific Bye-law and the authority under which such penalty can be imposed. If it says that it is an "administrative charge", it should explain the basis for the escalating amount and the services/costs against which the amount is being levied. If it says it is compensation for inconvenience or damage, it should identify the actual loss or additional expenditure.

The fact that your renovation has not caused any damage, blocked common utilities or caused inconvenience to other residents is therefore useful, but it should not be the only ground of your challenge. Your stronger legal objection is that the Association must first establish the source of its authority to impose the particular monetary demand and the validity of the resolution under the registered Declaration/Bye-laws and the KAOA.

I would also recommend that you continue complying with the legitimate renovation conditions imposed by the Association—for example, permitted working hours, worker identification, lift protection, debris removal and safety requirements—so that the dispute remains confined to the legality and quantum of the monetary demand, rather than allowing the Association to allege that you are generally violating renovation rules.

If the Association is unable to establish a valid legal basis for the charge and nevertheless threatens to obstruct your renovation, deny access to labourers/materials, disconnect essential services or take coercive measures, you can consider issuing a formal legal notice and, depending upon the circumstances, seeking appropriate civil relief against the enforcement of an unlawful demand.

It is also relevant that Section 7 itself contemplates an action for recovery of sums due, damages or injunctive relief where there is failure to comply with lawful covenants, Bye-laws and administrative provisions. This supports the proposition that the Association's enforcement power must be traced to a lawful obligation; Clause 22 should not be treated as an unrestricted carte blanche to impose any amount upon an apartment owner.

Therefore, on the present material, I would not advise accepting the ₹3,000/₹12,000 escalating non-refundable demand merely because the Management Committee has passed a resolution. At the same time, I would not categorically state that the demand is illegal until the registered Bye-laws, Declaration and the actual AGM/MC resolution are examined.

The immediate and safest course would be to obtain the complete registered Deed of Declaration, all registered Bye-laws/amendments and the AGM/MC resolution introducing the renovation charges. Once those documents are examined, it can be determined whether the Association actually possesses the power to levy this particular charge, whether the procedure for adopting it was followed, and whether the amount can legally be recovered from you.

In particular, if you provide Clause 22 in its entirety, the relevant renovation/alteration Bye-law, the AGM/MC resolution imposing ₹3,000/₹12,000 and the communication demanding payment from you, the validity of the demand can be assessed much more conclusively.