Telangana High Court
Prestige High Fields Flat Owners ... vs State Of Telangana on 16 October, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION Nos.28433 and 28423 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
In both the Writ Petitions, the petitioner-society is challenging the
orders dated 25.09.2024 and 10.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.224 of 2024
and I.A.No.207 of 2024 in O.P.No.32 of 2024 on the file of the
Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short 'Tribunal'), as bad in law.
2. Heard Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner-
Society, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior
Counsel, representing Sri Rahul Kandharkar, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.4 to 9. Perused the material available on record.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners before the Tribunal are
respondents No.4 to 9 in both the Writ Petitions. They have filed
O.P.No.32 of 2024 before the Tribunal challenging the invoices raised
for maintenance at the rate of per square feet, and the stand of the
petitioners before the Tribunal is that the maintenance charges should
be collected for all the flat owners equally. The Tribunal has stayed the
invoices and also stayed the impugned notices dated 31.08.2024 and
02.09.2024 for holding the General Body Meeting on 29.09.2024.
Challenging both the stay orders, the present Writ petitions are filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-society submitted that as
per the sale deeds executed in favour of the respondents No.4 to 9, the
maintenance for the flats is to be collected per square feet. He has
drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant clause in the sale
deeds and submitted that initially, the builder was maintaining the flats
and after formation of the Society, the Society has taken over the
maintenance as required and the maintenance has to be paid per
square feet. He submitted that the maintenance of the common area of
Apartment by the builder since inception up to 30.06.2024 was also
done by collecting the maintenance charges per square feet and there
was no objection raised earlier. He has also drawn the attention of this
Court to the averments made in the O.P., wherein the above facts have
been admitted by the petitioners themselves.
5. It is submitted that it is the General Body of the petitioner-Society
which has to take a decision on the maintenance charges to be collected
and the General Body Meeting was conducted on 11.08.2024, but did
not yield any result and thereafter, the meeting was conducted on
01.09.2024 by the Board and it was decided to collect the maintenance
charges per square feet as was done in the earlier months.
6. It is submitted that by staying the impugned notices of
maintenance, the petitioner-society has been deprived of the collection
of maintenance charges not only from the petitioners before the
Tribunal, but from all the other flat owners which are of approximately
2400 in number and therefore, the petitioner-society is facing severe
financial crunch in maintaining the society. It is further submitted that
the General Body Meeting, which was supposed to be hold on
29.09.2024, has also been stayed and therefore, no decision could be
taken by the General Body with regard to the maintenance charges. He,
therefore, seeks suspension of the impugned orders and a direction for
permission to hold the General Body Meeting to enable the petitioner-
society to take a decision on the maintenance charges.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 9,
submitted that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners are
unilateral in nature and do not bind the respondents that they have to
pay the maintenance charges per square feet. He has placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Venus Cooperative Housing Society and Another Vs. Dr. J.Y.
Detwani and Others 1 to submit that the large flat owners would not
get any services more than the other flat owners and therefore, there is
absolutely no rational basis for the society or no reason to require the
large flat owners to pay more for the aforesaid service charges.
He submitted that in the impugned notices dated 31.08.2024 and
2002 SSC OnLine Bom 1457
02.09.2024, it is not the General Body which has to take a decision to
collect the maintenance charges per square feet, but it is the decision of
the members of the Board who are not authorized by the Bye-Laws to
take such a decision. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal was
correct in granting stay in both the IAs.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 9
however, admitted that the petitioners are liable to pay the
maintenance charges and it is the General Body which has the power
and also is the ultimate authority to take a decision.
9. In view of the above and with the consent of both the parties, this
Court deems it fit and proper to permit the writ petitioner-society to
convene the General Body Meeting in accordance with the Bye-Laws
and decide the issue of maintenance charges after discussion in the
General Body Meeting. Till such time, the stay granted by the Tribunal
in I.A.No.207 of 2024 shall be limited only in respect of respondents
No.4 to 9 and shall not bind or cover any other flat owners.
The respondents No.4 to 9 shall also pay the maintenance charges as
per the invoices after the General Body decides about the maintenance
charges subject to the result of the O.P.No.32 of 2024
10. With the above observations and directions, both the Writ
Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in both the Writ
Petitions, shall stand closed.
______________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 16.10.2024
HFM/Isn
