Learn Trademark Filing Like a Pro. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Dilip Verma (employee)     23 September 2025

Maintenance charges for housing society in maharashtra

Sir...

How is maintenance charges in society calculated is it per square foot basis or it is unit basis.... As as one of the member suggested that there is an order from high court that maintenance charges for all flat should be collected on the basis of per square feet.. please advise regarding this 



 5 Replies

kavksatyanarayana (subregistrar/supdt.(retired))     23 September 2025

The maintenance charges in Maharashtra will be levied generally on a square foot and based on an equal division according to the society's registered bylaws.  If it comes under RERA, they should follow the RERA rules..

P. Venu (Advocate)     23 September 2025

To my knowledge, such charges are to be levied per unit. 

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     24 September 2025

Maintenance charges in Maharashtra housing societies can be calculated on a per-square-foot or per-unit basis, with the per-square-foot model being more common, especially in societies with a variety of flat sizes. However, a Mumbai court has enforced per-unit billing in some cases, stating that charging larger flats more for shared services lacked a rational basis, aligning with the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Model Bye-Laws that also consider a hybrid model. 

Dr. J C Vashista (Advocate )     24 September 2025

It is decision of General Body Meeting of the members of Society, which may adopt either way to levy maintenance.   

P. Venu (Advocate)     26 September 2025

To my knowledge,  a cooperative housing society's resolution to levy differential service or maintenance charges based on the area or size of the flat is arbitrary, unreasonable, and without any rational basis if the amenities and services provided by the society are common and equally enjoyed by all members, irrespective of the flat size. It has been held by the Bombay High Court at para 6 & 7 of its Judgment in Sunanda Janardan Rangnekar vs Rahul Apartment No. 11 ... on 10 August, 2005 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/949456/):

"6. In case of Venus Co-operative Housing Society the flats of different sizes, 284 small flats with two bedrooms and 39 large flats with four bedrooms. The society passed a resolution levying the different maintenance charges as per the area of the flats and issued a circular to that effect to members. Disputants who were the holders of the larger flats challenged the circular as also the resolution by filing a dispute under Section 91 of the Act before a co-operative Court. The co-operative Court declared the resolution of the society to be illegal and not binding on the disputants. The decision of the co-operative Court was confirmed by the appellate tribunal. The order was impugned by the society by way of a Writ Petition. This Court held that the resolution of the society levying differential charges on the basis of the area of the flats was arbitrary, unreasonable, without any rational and without any source of power. It held that services of the society were enjoyed by all the members equally and there was no reason for the society to make the large flat holders pay more on the basis of the area of the flats. It held that though the supremacy of the general body cannot be doubted, even the supreme general body had to pass resolutions considering all facts and circumstances of the matter. The general body cannot pass arbitrary and unreasonable resolutions merely because it is supreme and it has a large majority in favour of any issue on the agenda.

"7. In the present case the society is recovering differential amounts by way of a property tax on the basis of the area of the flats at the rate of 30.81 per sq. ft. per annum of the area. That has rightly not been challenged by the petitioner, as the property tax payable to Municipal authority would obviously vary according to the area of a flat. However, so far as the charges for the society services or maintenance are concerned, no material was adduced before the Asstt. Registrar to show that any additional services were provided to the petitioner or any additional maintainence was incurred by the Society on account of petitioner being a holder of commercial premises. In the affidavit in reply filed in this Court also, it is not even be alleged that any additional services are provided to the petitioner by reason of her being the holder of commercial premises. In my view, the society was not entitled to levy society charges/maintenance charges for commercial premises at twice the rate that of a residential premises. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by this Court in Venus Cooperative Housing Society v. J.Y. Detwani (supra) in this respect." 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register