Maintenance disputes in apartments: What residents can and can’t refuse

If you live in an apartment in India, maintenance charges are generally mandatory once the building is occupied and an association or competent body is in place. These obligations arise from a combination of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), state-specific apartment ownership laws (or societies acts), and the bye-laws of the Resident Welfare Association (RWA) or apartment association.

Across these frameworks, the consistent principle is that owners must contribute to the upkeep of common areas such as lifts, security, water systems, and shared infrastructure. Courts, including the Supreme Court in multiple rulings on cooperative housing and apartment associations, have upheld this principle that maintenance of common facilities is a collective obligation of all unit owners, regardless of usage or vacancy.

When a flat is rented out, the legal obligation toward the association typically remains with the owner, while the tenant’s responsibility depends on the rental agreement. This allocation is recognised in practice under apartment bye-laws, tenancy contracts, and consumer dispute cases, where associations generally treat the owner as the primary member responsible for dues.

What residents can legally question or challenge

There are specific situations where maintenance demands can be challenged or refused, depending on compliance with law and procedure:

• Before Occupancy Certificate (OC)
Under RERA regulations and standard state rules, builders cannot impose full society-style maintenance before OC because the lawful handover of the project is not complete. However, limited pre-possession charges (if disclosed in the agreement and justified for upkeep of completed parts) may be permitted in some states and contracts. Consumer forums (under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) and RERA authorities have repeatedly intervened against arbitrary pre-OC maintenance demands.

• Charges not disclosed in agreement
RERA (especially Section 11(4) and related disclosure obligations) requires builders to clearly specify maintenance terms in the agreement for sale. Consumer protection law also treats undisclosed or hidden charges as an unfair trade practice. Therefore, charges not agreed or disclosed upfront can be legally disputed.

• Unilateral or improper increases by RWA
Under standard society/apartment bye-laws (based on state cooperative societies acts or apartment ownership acts), maintenance revisions require approval through a General Body Meeting or equivalent decision-making process. Consumer courts and cooperative dispute mechanisms have consistently held that unilateral increases without due process are not enforceable.

Where residents can seek redressal

Disputes related to maintenance can typically be raised through multiple overlapping legal channels:

RERA Authority (mainly during builder control / handover phase issues)
Consumer Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for unfair charges, deficiency in service, or improper billing by builders/RWAs)
Cooperative/Society Registrar or Apartment Authority (depending on state law structure)
Civil courts, where broader property or governance disputes arise

These forums operate in parallel depending on whether the dispute is with the builder, the association, or involves contractual interpretation.

• Final legal clarity (important)
• Maintenance is not optional once validly levied under governing law and bye-laws
• But it must satisfy three conditions simultaneously:
• Legal authority (RERA / state law / bye-laws)
• Proper disclosure or approval
• Due process (especially for revisions)

If any one of these is missing, the charge can be challenged but not ignored outright without basis.
Ready to Make a Smarter Property Decision? Build Your Legacy with TOI Homes.