This case concerns a recent decision dated 4 August 2025 by the Bombay High Court in the case of Sachin Malpani and Ors. vs. Nilam Patil and Ors. The writ petition questioned the method of levying maintenance charges in a registered condominium under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 ("the Act"), and challenged the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in directing such charges to be apportioned based on undivided share.
Brief Facts
The petition stemmed from a dispute in the 'Treasure Park' condominium comprising 356 apartments. The petitioners, owning larger apartments (3BHK, 4BHK), objected to an order by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pune, dated 8 July 2021, which directed that maintenance charges be levied proportionate to the undivided share of each owner, instead of the previously prevailing equal charge. The challenge was rejected by the Co-operative Court on 13 May 2022, prompting the present writ petition.
Issues for Adjudication
The core issues for adjudication were:
- Whether the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies had jurisdiction under the Act to pass such orders.
- What is the correct method of levying maintenance charges- equal across apartments or proportionate to undivided share in common areas, as prescribed by law and the condominium's Deed of Declaration.
Held
The Bombay High Court held that:
- Notifications issued by the State Government validly conferred powers of the Registrar under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 onto the District Deputy Registrar, thus justifying the order's jurisdiction.
- The Deed of Declaration provisions and Sections 6 and 10 of the Act require that both common profits and common expenses be distributed among apartment owners in proportion to their undivided interest.
- The impugned resolutions and past practice of equal maintenance do not override statutory requirements; apartment owners with a higher undivided share must contribute proportionally to common expenses.
Relief
The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding both the Deputy Registrar's order dated 8 July 2021, and the Co-operative Court's order dated 13 May 2022. The petitioners' challenge was rejected, confirming the requirement of proportionate maintenance charges.
MHCO Comment
This judgment clarifies the application of the Act in the context of maintenance contribution in registered condominiums, emphasizing statutory compliance over majority resolutions. It confirms that statutory covenants in the Deed of Declaration and the Act must govern apportionment of expenses, ensuring fairness in financial obligations shared among owners according to their interest, preventing disproportionate burdens on smaller flat owners and aligning practice with the law.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
