Latest news with #MaharashtraApartmentOwnershipAct
Hindustan Times
08-08-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Should maintenance charges be based on apartment size or be equal for all? Here's what you should know
The Bombay High Court (HC) has ruled that flat owners with larger apartments must pay higher maintenance charges in housing complexes, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970, according to a report in the Hindustan Times. According to legal experts, the confusion among flat owners in Maharashtra stems from the absence of a uniform law governing maintenance charges, with multiple regulatory mechanisms in place. (Picture for representational purposes only)(Mehul R Thakkar/HT) The verdict came in response to a dispute at Treasure Park, a residential complex in Pune comprising 356 flats across 11 buildings. The condominium's managing body had passed a resolution to levy equal maintenance charges on all flat owners, irrespective of apartment size. According to the Hindustan Times report, owners of smaller flats challenged this decision in 2022, arguing that it violated the law. The law clearly states that maintenance costs must be shared based on each owner's undivided share of the common areas, something that depends on the size of the apartment. The deputy registrar of co-operative societies agreed with the smaller flat owners and ordered the condominium to charge maintenance fees proportionally. However, owners of the larger flats, unhappy with this order, first approached the Co-operative Court in Pune, but their case was dismissed in May 2022. They later moved to the Bombay HC, where they argued that maintenance is used for common areas and amenities used equally by all residents and that assuming bigger flats have more residents and therefore must pay more is unfair. Also Read: Mumbai real estate market: Planning to sell a flat in an old building? Here's why it can be tough What does the Bombay HC order say The Bombay HC disagreed with the flat owners of larger flats who challenged the Co-operative Court of Pune. Justice Milind Jadhav said that both the law and the condominium's own declaration documents support proportionate maintenance based on apartment size, according to the media report. Dismissing the petition, the court ruled that flat owners with larger homes must pay a larger share of the maintenance costs, as they hold a greater undivided interest in the common areas. Also Read: Owners of bigger apartments must pay more maintenance, rules HC What's the confusion? According to legal experts, the confusion among flat owners in Maharashtra stems from the absence of a uniform law governing maintenance charges, with multiple regulatory mechanisms in place. Experts say the first step is for apartment owners to determine whether their building is registered under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (MAOA) or a different framework. "The provisions of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 (MAOA) and covenants in the Deed of Declaration apply to the apartment owners in a condominium set up under the MAOA, 1970. As per the Bombay High Court ruling, in a condominium set up, an apartment owner who holds a higher proportionate value and size (area) of their apartments must contribute to common area maintenance charges proportionately," said Trupti Daphtary, an advocate and solicitor based in Mumbai. Also Read: Supreme Court order on green clearance paves way for 493 stalled real estate projects in Mumbai and Pune: CREDAI-MCHI "In contrast, for members of a housing society, it is the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) that apply. In 2002, the Bombay High Court, in the case of Venus Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Dr. J.Y. Detwani ruled that there is no rational basis for a co-operative society to levy maintenance charges based on the size of the flats. However, the Model Bye-law for the co-operative housing societies in Maharashtra has a provision for repairs and maintenance charges to be levied on members and certain charges could vary based on flat area."
Mint
06-08-2025
- Business
- Mint
Larger flat owners to bear higher maintenance costs, rules Bombay High Court
Flat owners of larger apartments must pay higher maintenance charges in housing complexes, in line with the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970, Bombay high court has ruled. The High Court's decision came during a recent hearing of a dispute involving Treasure Park, a residential complex in Pune with 356 flats across 11 buildings, Hindustan Times reported. The condominium's managing body had passed a resolution to collect equal maintenance charges from all flat owners, regardless of the flat size. However, the owners of smaller flats challenged this decision in 2022. They argued that it violated the law, which states that maintenance costs must be shared based on each owner's undivided share of the apartment's common areas. The deputy registrar of co-operative societies agreed with the smaller flat owners and ordered the condominium to charge maintenance fees proportionally. Owners of the larger flats, unhappy with this order, first approached the Co-operative Court in Pune, but their case was dismissed in May 2022. They then moved the Bombay High Court. The lawyer of larger flat owners told the court that maintenance is used for common areas and amenities used equally by all residents, and that assuming bigger flats have more residents—and therefore must pay more—is unfair. The Bombay High Court disagreed. Justice Milind Jadhav said that both the law and the condominium's own declaration documents support proportionate maintenance based on apartment size. Thus, dismissing the petition, the court ruled that flat owners with larger homes must pay a larger share of the maintenance costs, as they hold a greater undivided interest in the common areas, according to Hindustan Times. Justice Milind Jadhav stated that maintenance costs must align with each owner's undivided share of common areas. The two terms -- flat and apartment -- are often used interchangeably. But these terms are defined differently under The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1971 and the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. This distinction affects how maintenance is calculated. In most co-operative housing societies governed by the 1971 Act, maintenance is typically charged equally per flat. However, in apartment-condominiums governed by the 1970 Act, maintenance must be charged in proportion to the carpet area of each unit. Key Takeaways Maintenance fees in condominiums must be calculated based on flat size, as per Maharashtra law. Equal maintenance charges for differently sized flats can lead to legal disputes. Understanding property laws is crucial for flat owners to avoid conflicts over maintenance charges.
Hindustan Times
05-08-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Owners of bigger apartments must pay more maintenance, rules HC
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has ruled that flat owners with larger apartments must pay higher maintenance charges in housing complexes, in line with the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. Owners of bigger apartments must pay more maintenance, rules HC Although the terms flat and apartment are often used interchangeably, both are defined differently under the law- The Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1971 and the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. (SEE BOX). This distinction affects how maintenance is calculated. In most co-operative housing societies governed by the 1971 Act, maintenance is typically charged equally per flat. However, in apartment-condominiums governed by the 1970 Act, maintenance must be charged in proportion to the carpet area of each unit, since every apartment owner is a shareholder in the common property. The HC's decision came in a dispute involving Treasure Park, a residential complex in Pune with 356 flats across 11 buildings. The condominium's managing body had passed a resolution to collect equal maintenance charges from all flat owners, regardless of the flat size. Owners of smaller flats challenged this decision in 2022, arguing that it violated the law, which clearly states that maintenance costs must be shared based on each owner's undivided share of the common areas—something that depends on the size of the apartment. The deputy registrar of co-operative societies agreed with the smaller flat owners and ordered the condominium to charge maintenance fees proportionally. Owners of the larger flats, unhappy with this order, first approached the Co-operative Court in Pune, but their case was dismissed in May 2022. They then moved the Bombay high court. Their lawyer argued that maintenance is used for common areas and amenities used equally by all residents, and that assuming bigger flats have more residents—and therefore must pay more—is unfair. However, the high court disagreed. Justice Milind Jadhav said that both the law and the condominium's own declaration documents support proportionate maintenance based on apartment size. Dismissing the petition, the court ruled that flat owners with larger homes must pay a larger share of the maintenance costs, as they hold a greater undivided interest in the common areas. While under the 1971 Act, flat owners are entitled only to their individual units and access to common amenities, the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 gives apartment owners legal ownership of an undivided share in the land and common areas of the property—essentially making them co-owners of the entire premises.
Time of India
29-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Bombay HC strikes down GST demand on TDR used by real estate developer
NAGPUR : In an important ruling for Maharashtra's real estate sector , the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court set aside a GST demand issued to a city-based developer, holding that no taxable transfer of development rights occurred under the agreement in question. The decision offers clarity on the tax implications of development agreements in the real estate sector. The division bench of justices Avinash Gharote and Abhay Mantri delivered the ruling while allowing a petition filed by Shrinivasa Realcon, which challenged a show-cause notice issued on August 14, 2024, and a consequent GST order dated December 10, 2024. The demand pertained to a development agreement executed on April 7, 2022, for constructing a residential complex on an 8,000 sq ft plot at mouza Lendra. The developer was appointed by the landowner for a consideration of Rs7 crore and two flats. Senior counsel Akshay Naik, assisted by Abhishek Bhoot, argued that the project did not involve any transfer or purchase of development rights or floor space index (FSI) from external sources. Instead, the construction was based solely on the existing FSI or any statutory increase. Entry 5B of the GST notification dated June 28, 2017, amended on March 29, 2019, allows taxation of services involving the transfer of TDR or FSI for construction purposes. However, the court noted the GST law does not define a 'transfer of development right'. It referred to Clause 11.2 of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, which outlines TDR as compensation in FSI granted by a planning authority, not applicable in the present case. The bench concluded that the development agreement lacked any reference to the transfer of such rights and rejected the department's reliance on Clause 18 of the contract, which merely required compliance under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. Declaring the transaction outside the purview of Entry 5B, the court quashed both the show-cause notice and the final order. "The transaction contemplated does not fall within Entry 5B of the notification of June 28, 2017, as amended by another notification of March 29, 2019. Neither the show-cause notice nor the consequent order can be sustained," the judges stated in their order, thereby setting them aside. Key takeaways from HC verdict: - There was no actual trading of transfer of development rights (TDR) in the agreement - Entry 5B of GST notification could not be invoked in case - GST Act does not define 'transfer of development rights' - Developer used existing FSI or statutory increase, not external TDR - Clause 18 of agreement was not proof of transfer - Set aside both show-cause notice and final tax order
Time of India
28-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
HC strikes down GST demand on TDR used by real estate developer
Nagpur: In an important ruling for Maharashtra's real estate sector, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court set aside a GST demand issued to a city-based developer, holding that no taxable transfer of development rights occurred under the agreement in question. The decision offers clarity on the tax implications of development agreements in the real estate sector. The division bench of justices Avinash Gharote and Abhay Mantri delivered the ruling while allowing a petition filed by Shrinivasa Realcon, which challenged a show-cause notice issued on August 14, 2024, and a consequent GST order dated December 10, 2024. The demand pertained to a development agreement executed on April 7, 2022, for constructing a residential complex on an 8,000 sq ft plot at mouza Lendra. The developer was appointed by the landowner for a consideration of Rs7 crore and two flats. Senior counsel Akshay Naik, assisted by Abhishek Bhoot, argued that the project did not involve any transfer or purchase of development rights or floor space index (FSI) from external sources. Instead, the construction was based solely on the existing FSI or any statutory increase. Entry 5B of the GST notification dated June 28, 2017, amended on March 29, 2019, allows taxation of services involving the transfer of TDR or FSI for construction purposes. However, the court noted the GST law does not define a 'transfer of development right'. It referred to Clause 11.2 of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, which outlines TDR as compensation in FSI granted by a planning authority, not applicable in the present case. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trending in in 2025: Local network access control [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo The bench concluded that the development agreement lacked any reference to the transfer of such rights and rejected the department's reliance on Clause 18 of the contract, which merely required compliance under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. Declaring the transaction outside the purview of Entry 5B, the court quashed both the show-cause notice and the final order. "The transaction contemplated does not fall within Entry 5B of the notification of June 28, 2017, as amended by another notification of March 29, 2019. Neither the show-cause notice nor the consequent order can be sustained," the judges stated in their order, thereby setting them aside. Key takeaways from HC verdict: - There was no actual trading of transfer of development rights (TDR) in the agreement - Entry 5B of GST notification could not be invoked in case - GST Act does not define 'transfer of development rights' - Developer used existing FSI or statutory increase, not external TDR - Clause 18 of agreement was not proof of transfer - Set aside both show-cause notice and final tax order
