Supreme Court Judgement on Apartment Maintenance Charges

The Supreme Court of India has clarified the legal process of apartment maintenance charges and responsibility in residential societies. These rulings define the responsibilities of the developers, Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs),  and homeowners in managing the maintenance fees and enforcing compliance. Understanding Supreme Court decisions on apartment maintenance charges helps protect homeowners’ rights and prevent disputes.

What Are Apartment Maintenance Charges?

Maintenance in apartments is the fee that the housing societies or property management charge to maintain the upkeep of common areas and facilities, as well as repairs and day-to-day running. Such Supreme Court determinations on apartment maintenance charges normally involve:

• Security Services: Salaries of the security staff and the cost of surveillance systems.
• Sanitation and Cleaning: Cleaning communal facilities (corridors, lobbies, stairs, and parking spaces).
• Power in Common Areas: Lift, lighting, and common power.
• Water Supply: Borewell maintenance, water purification, or tanker supply costs.
• Repairs and Maintenance: The elevators, plumbing, and other equipment are serviced frequently.
• Waste management: Garbage collection and disposal fees.
• Facilities: Swimming pools, gymnasium, clubhouses, multifunctional halls, children’s playgrounds, etc.
• Reserve Funds: It is a contribution to a corpus fund in case of an unexpected repair or emergency.

Read More on: Apartment Maintenance Charges- Rules and Regulations

Key Issues Leading to Legal Disputes Over Maintenance Charges

Disputes over the Supreme Court judgement on apartment maintenance charges often arise due to various factors:

Lack of Clear Communication

Misunderstanding between apartment owners and the maintenance committee may cause disputes over charges.

Unclear or Excessive Charges

Unreasonable or poor maintenance charges can result in a lack of satisfaction and disputes amongst the residents.

Irregular or Improper Billing

Inconsistent billing practices, late penalties, or errors often escalate into disputes.

Disagreements Over Service Quality

The condition of facilities is substandard, or service standards are not up to par, resulting in resident complaints.

Differing Expectations Between Buyers and Developers

Mismatches between promised and delivered services lead to legal conflicts.

Disputes Over Ownership and Liability

The problem is that the misunderstanding regarding ownership or maintenance problems leads to conflicts.

Delayed Handover of Maintenance Responsibility

Delays in transitioning maintenance responsibilities from developers to residents can create disputes.

Read More on: Society Maintenance Charges In India

Landmark Supreme Court Judgements on Society Maintenance Charges

The legal framework governing apartment maintenance charges rests on three foundational Supreme Court rulings that together define the rights of residents, the accountability of RWAs, and the limits of developer power.

1. Rasila S. Mehta vs. Nariman Bhavan Custodian (2011)

The Court ruled that the Special Court Act of 1992 applied, whereby the Custodian needs to pay maintenance and repair expenses on the attached properties. It also retained interest in and recovery of penalties in court proceedings on arrears.

2. ITO, Mumbai vs. Venkatesh Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd. (2018)

The Court ruled that maintenance fees, non-occupancy charges, transfer fees, and amenity fund contributions collected by cooperative societies are not taxable under the principle of mutuality.

3. Padmini Infrastructure Developers (I) Ltd. vs. Royal Garden RWA (2021)

The failure to make necessary calculations and limit the maintenance charges in the case resulted in the rejection of the maintenance charges on unsold flats, and the Court identified the liability of the case.

4. Utpal Trehan vs. Home Developers Ltd. DLF (2022)

The Court ruled that developers are not allowed to charge maintenance fees after dealing with the responsibility to a resident association.

5. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1993): Maintenance Is a "Service"

The Supreme Court held that housing construction and the subsequent maintenance of a building fall squarely within the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act. The practical consequence is profound: if your RWA or builder fails to maintain lifts, sanitation systems, or common area lighting, you are legally a consumer with the right to file a complaint in Consumer Court for deficiency of service.

This ruling established that the relationship between a resident and their housing society is not merely a social arrangement.  It is a legally enforceable service contract.

6. The Calcutta Club Case (2019): RWA-Member Transactions Are Not "Supply"

In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that services rendered by a club or association to its own members do not amount to "service" under pre-GST laws because of the principle of mutuality.  There is no distinct buyer and seller when a member essentially deals with themselves through the association.

While this ruling technically concerned the pre-GST era, its interpretation of the mutuality principle carries significant weight in ongoing GST disputes involving RWAs. Experts widely cite it as the strongest precedent arguing that GST should not apply to RWA-member maintenance transactions at all.

Key 2025 Directions: Unilateral Fee Hikes Are Now Void

Building on these foundations, more recent Supreme Court directions in 2025 have tightened the screws on arbitrary maintenance hike practices:

• Fee hikes now require general body approval. Any unilateral escalation by a managing committee beyond what is justified by inflation or demonstrable operational needs is void and unenforceable.
• Maintenance charges must be clearly outlined in the sale agreement at the time of property purchase. Builders cannot introduce new charges or alter existing ones post-sale.
• The owner of a flat,  not the tenant,  remains primarily responsible for maintenance payments to the society, even if the flat is rented out.

Read More On: Non Payment of Society Maintenance Charges

Supreme Court Ruling on Society Maintenance Chargess and Their Consequences

The Supreme Court ruling on society maintenance charges has clarified the responsibilities of both residential societies and their members.

Equal Responsibility of All Residents

In clarifying this, the Court mentioned that all the residents share equally in some of the common expenses like the care of the common spaces and services, and thus no resident can be left without contributing to the maintenance of the property.

Relative Charges due to Apartment Size or Usage

Maintenance charges must be allocated proportionately according to the size of the apartment or the level of its usage in a way that encourages fairness in how these charges are calculated.

Responsibilities of the developers till the handover to the RWA

The developers have a role to play in maintaining the maintenance charges until the handover of the control to the Resident Welfare Association (RWA), such that the residents are not subjected to lousy services during the transition.

Focus on Fairness, Transparency, and Accountability

The Court noted that there must be some form of fairness and transparency by the Court in how it runs the maintenance charges, and thus these charges needed to be well communicated, itemised, and that the charges only served the benefit of the residents.

Compliance with the Supreme Court Judgement on Apartment Maintenance Charges

To ensure adherence to the Supreme Court’s guidelines on maintenance charges, stakeholders should:

Transparency in Cost Disclosure

Developers should give a breakdown of the maintenance costs so that no one can claim some hidden or arbitrary expenses.

Separate Maintenance Accounts

Maintenance and corpus funds must be held in separate accounts certified by a Chartered Accountant.

Proportional Charges

It is well established that apartment size or use should be used to determine maintenance costs to be fair to the residents.

Timely Formation of the RWA

The developers must transfer maintenance management to the RWA within the stipulated time.

Audit and Accountability

Funds are used under regular audit monitoring, and the residents or the RWA are given annual reports.

Advance Notice of Charges

Homeowners must be informed of the structure and frequency of maintenance charges.

Raising Disputes through RERA Complaint Forums

The residents can file a complaint with the RERA authority to put the related grievances concerning the maintenance charges to rest.

GST Compliance

Maintenance charges above ₹7,500 per month are subject to 18% GST, requiring proper tax filings.

No Income Generation for Developers

Developers can not use maintenance funds.

Read More On: Guide to Society Maintenance Charges as Per Bylaws

Challenges in Implementing the Supreme Court Judgement on Society Maintenance Charges

Implementing the Supreme Court’s guidelines poses certain challenges, such as:

Irregular Billing Practices

Poorly itemised bills, unclear payment cycles, and unjustified penalties can lead to confusion and disputes.

Delayed Handover to RWAs

Developers frequently delay transferring maintenance responsibilities, creating prolonged reliance on them and dissatisfaction among residents.

Service Quality Disputes

Residents may face subpar services despite paying charges, including issues with cleanliness, repairs, and security.

Unclear Proportional Charges

The implementation of charges that vary according to the size or the use of the apartment must possess clear methodologies, which do not necessarily exist.

Lack of Financial Transparency

Lack of trust and responsibility is due to failure to observe such conditions as individual bank accounts and audited reports.

Legal and GST Complexities

Navigating RERA complaint forums and GST compliance for charges over ₹7,500 per month remains challenging for RWAs and residents.

Lack of Awareness

The citizens are usually unaware of the Supreme Court ruling on society maintenance charges / RERA declaration on maintenance charges, which results in a lack of control over the compliance loopholes.

Big Relief for RWAs & Housing Societies Supreme Court Judgment

For years, housing society maintenance charges were a grey area. Builders collected fees with little accountability, penalised late payments without any ceiling, and routinely delayed handing over funds when an RWA took charge. Tenants were frequent targets too,  societies charged them higher maintenance than owner-occupants, sometimes without any basis, simply because they were renters. Residents and tenants had genuine grievances but no clear legal ground to challenge unfair practices. The Supreme Court, through multiple rulings reinforced by RERA, has now changed that. Charges must be fair, accounts must be transparent, penalties must be capped, and discriminatory charging against tenants is now explicitly illegal.

Here the key rulings that has become big relief for Residents of Housing Societies:

Maintenance charges must be fair and uniform

Societies cannot charge different amounts to different residents without a valid reason. This rule matters most when it comes to tenants.  A society cannot charge higher maintenance simply because a flat is rented out instead of owner-occupied. A separate "tenancy fee" or inflated maintenance for tenants is illegal.

There is one exception worth knowing: societies can charge the flat owner a Non-Occupancy Charge (NOC) if the flat is rented out. But this charge is capped by law. In Maharashtra, it cannot exceed 10% of total service charges. Other states have their own caps, so residents should check the rules applicable in their state.

Not all costs are split the same way

The Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between two types of maintenance costs. Expenses tied to the building's structure like external repairs or property tax can be divided proportionally based on flat size. But amenities that all residents use equally like security or lifts, should generally be split equally among all members regardless of flat size.

Late payment penalties have a ceiling

Societies cannot impose unlimited penalties on residents who miss maintenance payments. The Supreme Court has ruled that late fees must be reasonable and capped. The commonly cited limit is 12% per annum on the overdue amount. That said, the exact cap can vary depending on state-specific cooperative society rules and the society's registered bylaws, so residents should verify what applies to their society. What is consistent across rulings is that the society must give residents proper advance notice and a grace period before any penalty is applied. Penalties imposed without prior notice can be legally challenged.

Financial records must be open to residents

Transparency is now a legal obligation, not a courtesy. Housing societies must share detailed accounts of what maintenance fees were collected and how the money was spent. Residents have the right to inspect balance sheets, expense vouchers, and vendor contracts. Annual audited accounts must be circulated to all members.

When an RWA takes over, builders must hand over all funds

Under Section 11(4)(e) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the builder is legally responsible for maintaining the society until the RWA is formally constituted. Once the RWA takes charge, the builder must transfer all surplus maintenance funds along with complete financial records and accounts. The Supreme Court has reinforced this obligation — builders cannot retain leftover funds or delay the handover to maintain financial control over the society. The accounts handed over must be certified by a Chartered Accountant.

Builders must pay maintenance on unsold flats

Under Section 4(d) of RERA, builders are required to provide and maintain essential services at reasonable charges until the RWA takes over. This means the cost of unsold inventory cannot be passed on to existing residents.  The builder is responsible for paying maintenance on every unsold flat until it is sold. This ruling is especially relevant for residents in newly developed projects where a significant number of units remain unsold.

Legal Recourse for Residents Under Supreme Court Judgement on Apartment Maintenance Charges

Residents facing disputes or non-compliance with the Supreme Court judgement on apartment maintenance charges have several legal avenues to protect their rights:

RERA Complaint Forum

Residents can file unreasonable charges and non-adherence to agreements as complaints to the RERA authority.

Consumer Protection Act

Complaints of unfair practice or service defects can be solved through the consumer courts.

Civil Litigation

Residents can file civil suits for non-transparency or failure to deliver promised services.

Approaching the Cooperative Societies Registrar

Some of the disputes handled by the Registrar include mismanagement of funds and billing.

High Courts or the Supreme Court

Wider areas of legal dispute may be taken to the higher courts to be interpreted and resolved.

Mediation and Arbitration

The alternative dispute resolution mechanisms provide friendly ways of resolving disputes without protracted legal battles.

Read Also: Tips for Managing an Apartment Complex

Supreme Court Judgement on Society Maintenance Charges for Tenants

Uniform Charges Rule

Supreme Court mandates societies charge tenants the same maintenance as owners; bylaws govern that no extra "non-occupancy" premiums are allowed beyond standard rates.

Owner Liability Persists

Even if tenants pay directly, legal responsibility remains with flat owners; societies can't discriminate based on tenancy status.

Proportional Basis

Charges calculated per sq ft, equal share, or hybrid as per registered bylaws; courts strike down arbitrary tenant surcharges.

Key Case Impact

Landmark ruling (e.g., 2025 precedents) protects tenants from exploitative hikes, ensuring collective upkeep funding without bias.

Enforcement

Disputes are resolved via the Registrar; societies face penalties for violations, promoting equity in housing communities.​

Latest Supreme Court Judgement on Society Maintenance Charges

Builder Accountability

Pre-RWA formation, developers were liable for maintenance; they must disclose charges in sale agreements no post-sale evasion.

Universal Application

Fees are mandatory for all units (vacant/rented/owner-occupied); vacancy doesn't exempt payment for common area sustenance.

Audit & Transparency

Societies must maintain audited accounts; funds exclusively for commons, no diversion to individual repairs or profits.

No Arbitrary Increases

Hikes require general body approval; the Supreme Court (2025) voids unilateral committee escalations beyond inflation/reasonable needs.

RERA Alignment

Complements RERA rules, buyers get full disclosure; violations lead to refunds, fines, or society dissolution orders.

Apartment Management by NoBrokerHood

NoBrokerHood is an advanced apartment management system designed for gated communities, offering features like smart security, resident communication, maintenance management, and complaint resolution.

It digitises visitor and staff entry, enhances security with real-time tracking and emergency alerts, and streamlines administrative tasks like billing and amenities booking. The user-friendly app ensures easy onboarding for residents, security personnel, and management committees, with support for multiple languages and quick deployment within days. 

By integrating safety, communication, and operational tools on a single platform, NoBrokerHood simplifies society management and fosters a safer, more connected community environment

All Solutions by NoBrokerHood: