In a ruling that could have wide implications for apartment complexes across the city, a Bengaluru civil court has struck down a maintenance fee model that charged higher rates for larger flats. The court emphasized that “owners of all flat sizes use common facilities equally”, ruling that maintenance charges must now be calculated on an equal per-flat basis.
The XL Additional City Civil & Sessions Court invalidated the controversial hybrid billing model adopted by the Purva Seasons Owners Association in July 2020. Under this model, more than 74% of charges were linked to super built-up areas, while the remaining 25.9% was equally divided among 660 flats.
The order followed a suit filed by 61-year-old Arun Kumar Rao, a resident of Purva Seasons, CV Raman Nagar. Rao challenged the association’s framework, which had been passed in a virtual extraordinary general body meeting on July 25, 2020. He argued that the model “unfairly burdened owners of larger flats despite identical use of lifts, clubhouse, security, and other shared facilities.”
Rao highlighted that under the builder Puravankara Ltd, each flat paid about Rs 20,000 annually from an advance maintenance fund that carried a 15% management fee. He said the new model “violated the principle that all common-area expenses must be equally shared.” Rao also flagged procedural irregularities in the voting process, citing discrepancies in notices, transparency issues, and inconsistencies in figures.
Pointing to errors in the area calculation, he noted that the association cited a built-up area of 10,82,299 sqft, while the bye-laws listed 8,32,453 sqft, “altering the common-area percentage to around 43% and affecting how costs were calculated.” He further argued that the virtual EGBM itself was invalid, as “the bye-laws allowed only physical meetings and the association produced no document showing approval from the registrar to hold a digital session.” Rao added that the voting software “was unable to record multiple votes for owners of more than one unit.”
Invoices under the hybrid model, issued from May 2020, included 18% interest for unpaid dues. After his legal notice went unanswered, Rao filed a civil suit on November 6, 2020, seeking to prevent the association from amending bye-laws and to restore equal per-flat billing.
The association defended its model, claiming it resulted from months of discussion and multiple voting rounds. It cited Clause 39.1 of the bye-laws, stating it allowed pro-rata billing, and described the chosen model (Model Five) as “a reasonable extension of that clause.” The association added that General Body decisions were binding and accused Rao of withholding documents such as minutes and emails supporting the process.
After reviewing the case, Judge Veena N ruled that the July 2020 decision suffered from legal and procedural lapses. The court observed that the association “did not produce any evidence that the registrar had permitted a virtual meeting for a bye-law amendment.” It also noted errors in the amendment proposal, including confusion between “built-up” and “super built-up” area, which could have influenced the vote.” Contradictory emails, gaps in the voting mechanism, and the failure to address objections from several owners weighed against the resolution.
Sharing his view on the judgement, Dr Vivek Garg, Founding Director of NVT Quality Lifestyle and Governing Board Member, CREDAI Bengaluru, said, "The recent judgement rightly highlights the limitations of linking maintenance charges purely to usage. But the conversation requires a more nuanced economic view. A larger apartment does not just occupy more space, it represents the opportunity cost of multiple smaller homes that could have existed in the same footprint. A 4,000 sq. ft. unit essentially replaces two 2,000 sq. ft. units, and this has long-term implications for the community’s shared infrastructure. Basing maintenance solely on ‘usage of facilities’ ignores this inherent opportunity cost embedded within the built-up area."
"A more sustainable model is to divide maintenance into two components: usage-based operating expenses and long-term community investments. While itemising every cost is impractical, associations can adopt a simplified formula that reflects both fairness and operational ease. A balanced approach, such as 75% based on actual usage and 25% linked to unit size, allows societies to remain equitable while acknowledging structural realities. Ultimately, the objective is a framework that is transparent, simple to administer, and fair to all residents", he further added,
Ultimately, the court reaffirmed the principle that all residents share common amenities equally: “All the services are enjoyed by all the members equally irrespective of the size of their flats.” It struck down all invoices issued from May to December 2020 under the hybrid model, directed the association to calculate maintenance on an equal per-flat basis, and barred any future attempt to introduce area-linked billing. The association was also restrained from disconnecting essential services.A
.png)