Maintenance of Common Areas in Housing Societies in Karnataka

Published: 26 October 2024  ·  Updated: 23 May 2026  ·  By L K Monu Borkala, Senior Property Advisor at OneCity Property — over 20 years in Bangalore and Karnataka real estate.

Maintenance disputes are the most frequent source of conflict in Bangalore apartment societies — more common than parking disputes, more contentious than pet policies, and more likely to end in litigation than any other issue in residential community governance. The disputes arise from three persistent problems: residents who refuse to pay, associations that charge arbitrarily, and a legal framework complex enough that neither side fully understands their rights. Two significant rulings in 2026 — one from the Karnataka High Court in October and one from the Supreme Court — have clarified the legal position on both sides of these disputes in ways that every Karnataka apartment owner should understand.

This guide covers the complete framework for common area maintenance in Karnataka housing societies: what the law requires from builders before RWA formation, the three legally recognised calculation methods and which courts have upheld each, the 2026 Supreme Court ruling on unilateral charge escalations, the Karnataka HC's October 2026 direction that maintenance charges must reflect UDS, the GST threshold that catches societies off guard, the sinking fund and corpus fund distinction that most residents confuse, and the specific legal routes available when charges are disputed or funds are misused.

What Common Area Maintenance Legally Covers

The term "common area maintenance" in a housing society context has a specific legal meaning under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act 1972 (KAOA). Common areas are defined in the Deed of Declaration as everything in the building that is not individually owned — the foundation, load-bearing walls, corridors, staircases, lobbies, lifts, electrical systems serving the building as a whole, plumbing systems, parking areas (unless individually allotted and registered), gardens, driveways, security posts, pump rooms, and all utility infrastructure.

Maintenance charges collected by the RWA are legally restricted to the upkeep and operational costs of these common areas. The specific categories that maintenance charges can legitimately cover include:

Security and housekeeping: Salaries and welfare contributions for security personnel, housekeeping staff, and gardeners. This is typically the largest component of a society's maintenance budget — in Bangalore societies with twenty-four-hour security and regular housekeeping, manpower costs can represent fifty to sixty percent of total maintenance expenditure.

Common electricity: Power consumption for common area lighting (corridors, stairwells, parking, exterior), lift operation, pump operation, and common facility equipment. Common electricity bills are usually metered separately from individual flat meters and are distributed across all flats.

Lift maintenance: Annual maintenance contracts (AMCs) for all lifts, emergency call systems, and periodic safety certification charges from the Lift Inspectorate. Lift AMCs for a typical twelve-floor building run approximately one to two lakh rupees per lift per year in Bangalore's current market.

Water and sewage:BWSSB water connection charges, water tanker costs (where BWSSB supply is insufficient), sewage treatment plant (STP) operation and maintenance, and water pump maintenance. Water-related costs are particularly significant in Bangalore's outer ring areas where BWSSB supply is limited and tanker dependence is high.

Common facility maintenance: Swimming pool maintenance, gym equipment servicing, clubhouse operations, sports courts, and any other common facilities listed in the Deed of Declaration. The key legal point: only facilities that are listed as common areas in the Deed of Declaration or sanctioned building plan can be charged under common maintenance. A clubhouse that was promised but not listed in the DoD cannot become a maintenance liability.

Minor common area repairs: Replacement of common area lights, minor plumbing repairs, painting of common corridors at periodic intervals, pest control for common areas, and consumables for common systems.

What maintenance charges legally cannot cover: individual flat repairs (even if a structural defect exists — this falls under the builder's five-year defect liability under RERA Section 14(3)); parking or storage facilities that have been individually allotted and registered; and any expenditure that benefits only a subset of residents rather than all residents proportionally.

Who Is Responsible for Maintenance Before the RWA Is Formed?

Under RERA Section 4(d), the developer (promoter) is legally responsible for maintaining the common areas and providing all promised services from the date of possession until the Resident Welfare Association is formally constituted and takes over. This pre-RWA maintenance period is frequently mismanaged — developers often either overcharge or underservice during this phase because the residents have no organised body to hold them accountable.

The legal obligations on the developer during this pre-RWA period are specific:

Maintenance charges collected from residents during this period must be deposited into a separate dedicated account — not mixed with the developer's general operating funds. RERA mandates transparency: the developer must provide a breakdown of maintenance charges showing the frequency, the amount per flat, and the specific purposes for which the collected amounts are being used. The developer cannot profit from maintenance charges — collections must be used solely for operational and maintenance purposes, not to subsidise other project costs or generate surplus for the developer.

The developer must transfer accumulated maintenance funds, along with all relevant documentation (maintenance contracts, utility account details, vendor agreements), to the RWA at the point of handover. A developer who fails to transfer these funds or who has commingled maintenance collections with project funds can be complained against at K-RERA under Section 31. This complaint can also include a demand for an accounting of all maintenance amounts collected and their useation during the pre-RWA period.

The developer is also obligated to pay maintenance charges for all unsold units within the project — the obligation to maintain common areas does not reduce because some units remain unsold. The developer's own unsold inventory is effectively a resident for common area cost-sharing purposes, and they cannot exempt themselves from the proportionate maintenance liability on unsold flats.

The Three Calculation Methods — Which Is Legally Valid?

The most contentious governance question in Karnataka housing societies is how maintenance charges should be calculated — per square foot (proportional to flat size), equally per flat regardless of size, or a hybrid of both. Courts and tribunals across India have addressed this in multiple rulings, and the legal position is more nuanced than either side of a typical society dispute acknowledges.

Per square foot calculation: Maintenance charges are calculated in proportion to each flat's carpet area. A 2,000 sq ft flat pays twice as much as a 1,000 sq ft flat. This method is generally considered more equitable for amenities that are used in proportion to the number of residents — larger flats typically house more residents and generate more maintenance load. Karnataka courts have upheld per-square-foot calculations as a legally valid method, and it is the most commonly used method in Bangalore apartment societies.

Equal per-flat calculation: Each flat pays the same maintenance regardless of size. This is argued to be fair because the common areas — the lift, the lobby, the security post — are the same for a 700 sq ft flat as for a 2,500 sq ft flat. The Supreme Court has acknowledged equal-per-flat as a legally valid method where the society's bylaws specify it. However, owners of smaller flats in societies with equal charging have consistently argued against it, and in multi-size complexes, per-square-foot is generally the judicially preferred method.

Hybrid model: A fixed base charge applies to all flats equally (covering genuinely shared services like security and lift), plus a variable component proportional to flat size (covering services that scale with flat size). This model has been upheld as the most equitable by several consumer forums and is the method recommended by the Model Bylaws under MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act), whose judicial reasoning has been cited in Karnataka proceedings.

The legally critical point: whichever method the association adopts must be specified in the society's registered bylaws and approved by the General Body. A Managing Committee cannot unilaterally change the calculation method without a General Body resolution. Any resident who disputes the method has the right to demand that the change be approved by a General Body vote — and if it was not, the change is potentially invalid under the association's own governing documents.

Karnataka High Court — October 2026 Ruling: Charges Must Reflect UDS

In October 2026, the Karnataka High Court issued a significant ruling addressing a dispute between an apartment association and its Managing Committee, holding that maintenance charges must reflect the Undivided Share (UDS) of land and the proportionate use of common facilities. The Court quashed a Registrar of Co-operative Societies order and directed that maintenance charges cannot be assessed on a basis that is unrelated to the apartment owner's actual share of the common property.

The practical implications of this ruling for Karnataka apartments:

First, maintenance charges that are calculated on a method inconsistent with the UDS proportions specified in the Deed of Declaration can be challenged on the basis of this ruling. If your UDS in the common land and facilities is proportional to your carpet area, then maintenance charges calculated on a basis significantly different from carpet-area proportion may be challengeable under this October 2026 precedent.

Second, the ruling reinforces that the DoD (Deed of Declaration) is the foundational document for all common area governance. The UDS specified in the DoD is not just a land ownership metric — it is the baseline for proportional rights and obligations in the common property, including maintenance obligations. Managing Committees that calculate charges on an arbitrary basis that is inconsistent with the DoD's UDS distribution face increased legal exposure after this ruling.

Third, the ruling makes clear that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies does not have unlimited authority to direct associations on maintenance charge methodology — the Court's role in reviewing such directions was affirmed, providing a judicial oversight mechanism for associations where the Registrar has issued directions that residents believe are unfair.

2026 Supreme Court Ruling — Unilateral Escalations Void

The Supreme Court's 2026 direction on housing society maintenance charges addressed one of the most common complaints from Bangalore apartment residents: Managing Committees that increase maintenance charges unilaterally, without a General Body vote, simply by issuing a revised charge notice. The Court held that any increase in maintenance charges beyond the rate of inflation or a reasonable operational cost adjustment requires explicit approval from the General Body — a Managing Committee cannot impose significant unilateral escalations on its own authority.

What this means for Karnataka apartments in practice:

A Managing Committee that increases monthly maintenance from three thousand to five thousand rupees per flat without a General Body resolution is acting in violation of this ruling. The increase is potentially voidable on challenge. Residents who have paid at the escalated rate without the rate having been approved by a General Body resolution have grounds to demand the excess back — though in practice, the documentation and organisational effort this requires means most residents do not pursue it unless the increase is very significant.

The process that must be followed for any material maintenance charge increase: a notice of General Body Meeting with the proposed increase on the agenda, at least fourteen days before the meeting; a quorum at the General Body Meeting as specified in the bylaws; a resolution passed by the required majority; and documentation of the resolution in the minutes that are available to all members. Any increase approved through this process is legally valid. Any increase imposed without it is potentially voidable.

GST on Housing Society Maintenance — The Rs 7,500 Threshold

Goods and Services Tax applies to housing society maintenance charges under specific conditions that many Bangalore RWAs and residents are unaware of, creating silent compliance failures that accumulate over multiple years.

GST at eighteen percent applies to housing society maintenance charges when two conditions are simultaneously met: the monthly maintenance contribution per flat exceeds seven thousand five hundred rupees; and the society's total annual revenue (from all sources including maintenance collections, parking fees, club charges, and other income) exceeds twenty lakh rupees per year. Societies that meet both thresholds must register under GST, issue GST-compliant invoices for maintenance charges, file monthly or quarterly GST returns, and deposit the collected GST with the government.

The GST applies only on the amount above the seven thousand five hundred rupee threshold per flat — not on the full amount. A flat paying nine thousand rupees monthly maintenance owes GST on one thousand five hundred rupees (nine thousand minus seven thousand five hundred), which at eighteen percent is two hundred and seventy rupees per month per flat. The calculation appears small per flat, but across a two-hundred-unit society, the annual GST liability on this differential could exceed six lakh rupees — a significant amount for an unregistered society to have ignored.

Bangalore societies with significant amenity infrastructure (large swimming pools, tennis courts, well-equipped gyms, multiple security posts) often have maintenance charges well above seven thousand five hundred rupees per flat and annual revenues well above twenty lakh rupees. These societies must be GST-registered. A society that should be GST-registered but is not faces the full GST liability on past collections plus interest and penalties for non-filing — a cumulative liability that can be significant for a society that has been non-compliant for several years.

Sinking Fund vs Maintenance Fund vs Corpus Fund — Understanding All Three

Most Bangalore apartment societies operate with confusion between three separate funds that have different legal characters, different governance rules, and different permitted uses. Conflating them creates both governance problems and potential legal liability for Managing Committee members.

Maintenance Fund: The operational fund into which monthly maintenance charges are deposited. This fund covers all ongoing operational expenses — salaries, electricity, water, lift AMC, and minor repairs. The Maintenance Fund is a current account that cycles regularly — money comes in monthly from resident collections and goes out regularly in payments to service providers. The Managing Committee manages this fund in its day-to-day operations without requiring General Body approval for each expenditure within the approved budget.

Sinking Fund: A long-term capital reserve specifically for major capital expenditure — lift replacement, terrace waterproofing, external painting, major structural repairs, or building system replacement that has a useful life exceeding three years. The sinking fund is accumulated from a separate monthly contribution per flat, distinct from the operational maintenance charge. Withdrawals from the sinking fund for any purpose other than major capital expenditure require General Body approval. A Managing Committee that uses sinking fund money for operational expenses — paying staff salaries or electricity bills — is misusing the fund and potentially creating personal liability for committee members.

Corpus Fund: A one-time capital contribution collected at possession — typically two to three months' maintenance equivalent — that serves as a permanent reserve for the society. The corpus fund is intended to remain intact as a permanent reserve — it is not supposed to be used for operational expenses or even most capital expenses. In practice, many Bangalore societies have used corpus funds for operational shortfalls, which depletes the permanent capital cushion and creates governance problems when unexpected major expenses arise.

At handover, the developer must transfer to the incoming RWA all three funds separately — the balance in the maintenance account, the accumulated sinking fund, and the corpus fund — along with audited accounts showing how each has been built and used during the developer's management period. A developer who cannot separately account for these three funds at handover has a transparency problem that the incoming RWA should escalate to K-RERA as part of the handover process.

How to Dispute Unfair Maintenance Charges in Karnataka

Karnataka residents have four distinct legal routes for disputing maintenance charges, each appropriate for different circumstances:

Internal General Body Resolution: For disputes about the calculation method, an increase that was not approved by General Body, or charges for services not listed as common areas in the DoD — the first step is a written complaint to the Managing Committee demanding a Special General Body Meeting to address the specific issue. If the Managing Committee refuses or does not respond within thirty days, this refusal itself becomes the basis for an escalation to the Registrar.

Registrar of Co-operative Societies: For societies registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (KCSA), the Registrar has jurisdiction over governance disputes including maintenance charge calculation disputes and fund mismanagement allegations. A written complaint to the Registrar with documentary evidence (society bylaws, demand notices, correspondence with the Managing Committee) triggers an investigation that can result in the Registrar directing a correction or calling a General Body Meeting.

K-RERA Complaint: For disputes related to the developer's maintenance management during the pre-RWA period — overcharging, failure to maintain separate accounts, failure to transfer funds at handover, or maintenance charges that contradict what was disclosed in the sale agreement — K-RERA has jurisdiction under RERA Section 31. The complaint fee is one thousand rupees and the process is online at rera.karnataka.gov.in.

Consumer Forum: For disputes where the maintenance charge dispute is framed as a service deficiency — the society (or developer) is collecting charges but not providing the promised services — the Consumer Protection Act 2019 provides a remedy through the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Consumer courts have awarded refunds of excess maintenance charges plus compensation in documented cases of service deficiency.

For the governance framework of Karnataka apartment associations: Understanding the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act: Complete Guide

Frequently Asked Questions: Common Area Maintenance in Karnataka Housing Societies

Can an apartment society in Bangalore charge maintenance on vacant or unsold flats?

Yes. Maintenance charges for common area upkeep apply to all units — occupied, vacant, rented, and unsold. A flat owner who keeps their unit vacant cannot exempt themselves from common area maintenance on the grounds that they are not using the common areas. The maintenance of corridors, lifts, security, and external areas continues regardless of individual occupancy status. For unsold units owned by the developer, the developer is responsible for paying the proportionate maintenance charge — they cannot exempt their inventory from the common area cost.

What is the correct way to calculate maintenance charges in a Bangalore apartment society?

Karnataka law and judicial practice recognise three methods: per-square-foot (proportional to carpet area), equal per-flat (same amount regardless of size), and hybrid (fixed base plus variable per-square-foot component). The method must be specified in the society's registered bylaws and approved by the General Body. The October 2026 Karnataka HC ruling confirmed that the method must be consistent with the UDS proportions in the Deed of Declaration. Per-square-foot is the most commonly used and judicially upheld method in Bangalore societies with varied flat sizes.

Can the Managing Committee increase maintenance charges without a General Body vote?

No. The 2026 Supreme Court ruling held that any material increase in maintenance charges beyond inflation or minor operational cost adjustments requires explicit General Body approval. A Managing Committee that issues a revised charge notice without a General Body resolution is acting without legal authority for that increase. Residents can challenge the unilateral increase, withhold the increased portion pending a proper General Body vote, and demand that the excess already paid be applied to future charges or refunded.

Does GST apply to housing society maintenance charges in Bangalore?

GST at 18% applies when two conditions are simultaneously met: monthly maintenance per flat exceeds Rs 7,500; and the society's total annual revenue exceeds Rs 20 lakh. Both conditions must apply. If monthly maintenance is Rs 9,000 per flat, GST applies only on Rs 1,500 per flat (Rs 9,000 minus Rs 7,500 threshold), at 18% = Rs 270 per flat per month. Societies meeting both thresholds must register under GST, issue compliant invoices, and file returns. Non-compliant societies face the full past liability plus interest and penalties.

What is the difference between the sinking fund and the corpus fund?

The sinking fund is a long-term capital reserve accumulated through regular monthly contributions from all flat owners, specifically for major capital expenditure — lift replacement, waterproofing, major structural repairs. It requires General Body approval for withdrawals. The corpus fund is a one-time capital contribution collected at possession that serves as a permanent reserve — it should not be used for operational expenses. Managing Committees that use either fund for operational shortfalls are misusing restricted funds and creating potential personal liability for committee members. At handover from developer to RWA, both funds must be transferred separately with audited accounts.

RWAs frequently confuse facility management with legal property management obligations — our overview of property manager roles and responsibilities clarifies which decisions require a licensed professional and which the committee can handle directly under Karnataka law.

Professional property management services in Karnataka are increasingly engaged by larger RWAs where the committee lacks bandwidth to manage vendor contracts, AMC renewals, and statutory compliance — the engagement cost is typically recovered through vendor renegotiation and reduced ad hoc repair spending.

Any addition to common area infrastructure — generator room expansion, additional parking decks, or rooftop solar installations — requires fresh building plan approval from BBMP, a fact many RWAs discover only after construction is completed and penalised.