In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of Section 21 of the Telangana Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987, reinforcing the rights of apartment associations to disconnect essential services for non-payment of dues.
The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Srikanth Bolla, MD of Bollant Industries, who challenged the constitutional validity of Section 21 of the Act, which allows apartment associations to disconnect essential services to flat owners for non-payment of dues.The petitioner submitted that the provision infringes upon the fundamental rights.
The dispute arose after the petitioner, a company owning several flats, was denied parking space by the developer. In response to not receiving parking, the company withheld maintenance dues. The Association demanded payment of arrears and, following non-payment, disconnected the water supply to the petitioner’s premises as per Section 21 of the Telangana Apartments Act, 1987.
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe alongside Justice N V Shravan Kumar ruled that there was no substantial grounds to question the validity of Section 21 of the Act. The section allows apartment associations to disconnect essential services for unpaid dues. The court upheld the Act’s provisions, emphasising the need for maintenance charge compliance and rejected the argument that it violated Fundamental Rights.
The bench referenced the Act’s legislative background and noted that the Act was formulated following recommendations from the Andhra Pradesh Law Commission, which drew insights from similar legal frameworks in states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. The intention behind such legislation is to provide a structured approach towards the maintenance of apartment complexes ensuring that the associations have the necessary tools to manage defaults effectively, highlighting the necessity for such measures to ensure compliance with maintenance charges for the collective welfare of apartment dwellers.
The court stated that apartment associations require funds for maintenance, which are collected from the owners. Section 21 of the 1987 Act ensures associations can enforce these payments by disconnecting services if necessary. The court observed, “At the time of purchasing of the flat, the apartment owner agrees to pay the charges due to association under the bye-laws. Funds are required by the association to undertake the activity of maintenance of the building. In the absence of any power to recover the amount due to the association, the very object of providing maintenance charges would be like a toothless tiger.”
It was held that this measure is not seen as arbitrary but as a reasonable restriction as it aligns with the agreed terms upon purchasing the flat. Rights to essential services depend on meeting financial obligations, aligning with the constitution that allows for reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights for community welfare and operational needs.
The bench also criticised Bolla’s decision to contest the law’s legality by way of a writ petition instead of resolving the dispute through established legal channels.
The court dismissed the petition, emphasising the importance of adhering to community living rules, highlighting that individual owners cannot undermine collective rights and responsibilities. The court stated that it does not find “any merit in the challenge to the validity of Section 21 of the 1987 Act. The same is misconceived”. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue other legal avenues to resolve the issue of unpaid dues.
Comments
0 comment