From football and flowerpots to clubhouse access, who really controls common areas in a housing complex?Shared spaces in apartment complexes remain a frequent source of disputes. Court rulings make it clear that while apartment associations can regulate common areas, they cannot do so arbitrarily
Three rulings this week put the spotlight on one issue that affects millions of apartment owners: the rights and responsibilities surrounding common areas in housing societies. From children playing football and flowerpots blocking corridors to stray dog attacks and access to clubhouses, courts and regulators delivered important clarifications on where apartment associations, resident welfare associations (RWAs) and developers must draw the line. Karnataka High Court: Don’t ban children from playing footballCan an apartment association stop children from playing football because a few residents complain about noise or inconvenience? The Karnataka High Court answered with a clear no. The court held that apartment associations cannot impose blanket restrictions on children’s use of common play areas through arbitrary resolutions. Any regulations governing common facilities must be backed by the association’s registered bylaws and adopted through due process. The court also ruled in favour of residents on another contentious issue, obstructions in common spaces. It directed the apartment association to remove flowerpots and other objects placed on staircases, corridors and other common areas, holding that such spaces must remain accessible to all residents. Noida RWA held liable for ‘deficiency in service’ after child bitten by stray dogsIn another important ruling, the District Consumer Commission directed the Resident Welfare Association (RWA) of Kendriya Vihar-II in Noida’s Sector 82 to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation after a four-year-old girl was bitten by stray dogs inside the gated community. The commission held that the incident amounted to a ‘deficiency in service’, observing that an RWA collecting maintenance and security charges cannot evade its responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure residents’ safety in common areas. The ruling is significant because it reinforces the principle that RWAs may be held accountable under the Consumer Protection Act for lapses in maintenance and safety, thereby strengthening the rights of residents who pay regular maintenance charges. MahaRERA: ‘Clubhouse access is beyond our jurisdiction’The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) also clarified the limits of its powers this week. It ruled that it cannot direct a developer to prevent tenants or guests from accessing common amenities such as a clubhouse, noting that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, does not empower the Authority to regulate such matters. The dispute arose after a housing society near Mumbai argued that, although apartment buyers’ agreements described clubhouse rights as non-transferable, the developer continued to allow tenants and outsiders to use the facility. MahaRERA held that such disputes fall outside its jurisdiction, leaving the issue to be resolved through other legal avenues.
The common thread across all casesShared spaces in apartment complexes, from playgrounds and corridors to clubhouses and parks, remain a major source of conflict. But this week’s rulings make one thing clear: while associations and RWAs can regulate common areas, their powers are neither absolute nor arbitrary, and they remain accountable for ensuring these spaces are safe, accessible and managed in accordance with the law. Common areas, common rights: The legal positionLegal experts say Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) and apartment associations cannot impose arbitrary restrictions on the use of common areas such as playgrounds, clubhouses and parks. “Any restrictions must be in accordance with the association’s registered bye-laws, approved through the prescribed decision-making process—such as a general body meeting where required—and should be reasonable, non-discriminatory and compliant with applicable apartment ownership laws,” they say. While associations may prescribe reasonable regulations regarding playing hours, safety measures, or noise management, a blanket ban on activities such as children playing football is unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny unless it is expressly supported by the bye-laws or justified by genuine safety concerns. On the issue of flowerpots and decorative items in corridors, legal experts say even seemingly minor encroachments can be unlawful if they appropriate space meant for common use or violate the association’s bye-laws. Courts, they explain, distinguish between beautification and obstruction by examining whether such objects impede free movement, compromise fire safety or emergency evacuation, interfere with the rights of other residents, including senior citizens and persons with disabilities, or effectively amount to the exclusive use of common property. “Aesthetic intent alone does not justify obstructing common areas,” they say. The Noida consumer commission’s ruling on the stray dog attack also reinforces an important legal principle: entities responsible for maintaining residential communities, whether a developer’s maintenance agency or an RWA, can be held accountable if they fail to provide the services for which residents pay. “The underlying principle is that maintenance charges are collected not only for the upkeep and cleanliness of common areas but also to ensure a reasonably safe living environment within a gated community. If there is a lapse on the part of the maintenance agency or the RWA in discharging these responsibilities, the managing committee can be held liable for deficiency in service under consumer law,” legal experts say. They add that the order strengthens the principle of accountability. “Residents paying maintenance charges are entitled to expect not only clean and well-maintained common areas but also reasonable safety and security within the society. Where a failure in maintenance or safety results in harm, the managing committee may be held responsible for a deficiency in service.” Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
|
0 टिप्पणियाँ: