On September 9, 2015, Mr Singhal, a retired chief engineer, with his daughter-in-law purchased a new apartment in Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, through a sale agreement. At that time, they were unaware of the horrible conditions of the housing society, which lacked facilities like independent water connections and sewage system.
On July 30, 2012, Singhal got the possession of the apartment from the builder but without any Occupation Certificate (OC) or Completion Certificate (CC) from the local government. Despite this, the builder started demanding maintenance charges from Singhal, which he refused to pay, leading a legal dispute between the two parties.
On June 12, 2024, the builder issued a demand letter asking Mr Singhal and his daughter-in-law (homebuyers) to pay a maintenance charge of Rs 3.85 lakh. The builder also sent notices to them, threatening withdrawal of services and other adverse consequences for non-payment.
The builder also demanded a payment of Rs 1.85 lakh for the lift facility, which Singhal alleged was non-functional. As per the builder, Mr Singhal and his daughter-in-law, who have disputed these maintenance charges with him, continue to occupy the flat and have put it on rent, thus evidencing possession and enjoyment of the benefits.
Subsequently, this maintenance dispute case reached the Himachal Pradesh RERA, where the tribunal held that homebuyers can't evade their maintenance payment obligations if they are living in that flat and deriving its benefits. The tribunal said that allottees of the housing project must pay reasonable maintenance charges, especially given the present circumstances.
The Himachal Pradesh RERA, in its order dated May 7, 2026, said that once the allottee is in possession and is availing services at least basic in nature, the liability to pay the maintenance cannot be completely denied.
The Himachal Pradesh RERA said that they are of the view that the homeowners cannot hold dual positions: on the one hand, they are enjoying possession of the property and earning benefits from it, while on the other, denying their liability to pay maintenance charges.
Also read: UP RERA new advisory: 6 key checks homebuyers should do before purchasing property
"A party cannot accept the benefit of a situation and at the same time refuse to fulfill the obligations arising from it," the Himachal Pradesh RERA said.
However, the Himachal Pradesh RERA also held that the builder could not raise arbitrary maintenance demands while failing to obtain Occupation Certificate and Completion Certificate and provide promised statutory amenities, reported LiveLaw.
The Himachal Pradesh RERA also said that the manner of raising demands without proper break-up, transparency, and supporting material raises concerns regarding the reasonableness of such maintenance charges.
The Himachal Pradesh RERA Authority said that they are of the considered view that while the builder is entitled to recover maintenance charges; however, such recovery must be strictly in accordance with law. The builder cannot levy excessive, arbitrary, or unsupported charges, nor can it impose unreasonable conditions upon the allottees.
Also read: Bought a flat but parking too small and far away? Homebuyer filed case but lost in RERA; here’s why
Consequently, the Himachal Pradesh RERA authority partly upheld the homeowners' complaint, stating that recovery of dues must be undertaken through lawful means, and coercive threats cannot be sustained.
The Himachal Pradesh RERA said that regarding the allegations of coercive notices and collection of charges, it is a settled position that recovery of dues must be undertaken through lawful means and due process.
The RERA authority said: "Any threat of cancellation or imposition of conditions beyond the terms of the Agreement for Sale and provisions of the Act cannot be sustained in law."
Thus, the RERA authority said that homeowners cannot deny their maintenance charges liability, however, at the same time possession of flat without OC and CC is not lawful or complete in the eyes of law. Moreover, in this case the RERA authority found that the homeowners (Mr Singhal and his daughter-in-law) were already occupying the flat and even put it on rent, thus complete denial of maintenance payment is wrong.
At the same time, the builder had failed to comply with earlier directions requiring it to obtain Completion and Occupation Certificates, reported LiveLaw.
The Himachal Pradesh RERA also said that the builder has a statutory obligation to provide essential services at reasonable charges; thus, accordingly, the maintenance payment demands must be reasonable, transparent, and supported by evidence of actual services. Thus, the RERA authority again ordered the builder to get OC and CC, and this time within three months, else pay a per-day penalty of Rs 2,000.
Ultimately, the Himachal RERA authority also asked the builder to convene a general body meeting of the RWA within one month before fixing the maintenance charges, which once determined, needs to be paid by the homeowners within the specified time.
