3 Answers
Dear Client,
Whether the equal-contribution demand is objectionable depends heavily on what governs your building's arrangement, and since you describe it as not a society, this may not automatically fall under a statutory Apartment Ownership Act framework at all, since those Acts typically apply to registered owners' associations. In that situation, cost-sharing may instead rest on whatever your original purchase or possession agreement says, or on informal consensus among residents, which can still bind you if you previously participated in or accepted a similar equal-sharing arrangement without objection.
That said, proportionate sharing by unit size is the more commonly recognised default where no specific formula exists, and your point about a 942 sq ft unit being asked to pay the same as a 2500 sq ft unit has genuine force on that basis. Separately, "beautification" being optional and cosmetic, as distinct from structural renovation, is a reasonable distinction to draw, though whether it succeeds may depend on how integrated the beautification work is with the renovation already undertaken, since some cosmetic work is treated as part of a single project rather than severable.
Practically, we would suggest first checking your purchase or possession documents for any maintenance or cost-sharing clause, then requesting a written breakdown of the beautification costs and the basis on which contributions are being calculated, and responding in writing proposing a proportionate alternative rather than simply declining, since a documented objection built on a concrete counter-proposal is generally stronger than an outright refusal if this is later disputed.
I hope this answer helps. If you have any further query kindly do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you.
Dear Client,
I understand your legal issue, and based on your legal query, I offer you my opinion. The answer to your question is that no one can legally force you to pay the beautification charge for your building when you have already paid the basic renovation charge for your building.
If they continuously force you to pay such charges, you can send a written objection to the other owners regarding such beautification by pointing out that your building's footing is not equivalent to the other owners' buildings.
If, under any such circumstances, they threaten you to pay the charge by cutting off your necessary services, then you shall provide a legal notice to the co-owners mentioning that withholding necessities is illegal according to law.
Hope this answer helps!
For further legal assistance, do not hesitate to contact us
OLQ LAW FIRM
Dear Client,
As there isn’t a formal housing society, the issue here is whether the building has any legal backing at all. You need to check if there’s a Declaration registered under the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act. If there isn't, no one has the legal right to force you to pay for beautification.
Even if the building is legally registered, the costs are supposed to be divided up based on the square footage of your flat. They can't just split the bill evenly among everyone. Charging you the exact same amount for a 942 sq ft place as someone staying in a 2500+ sq ft place is legally questionable.
However, keep in mind there's a big difference between essential maintenance - which everyone usually has pay a reasonable amount for and purely cosmetic beautification. They can only force you to pay for cosmetic changes if a formal body holds a real vote on it, and even then, it still has to be billed proportionally by square footage, never a flat rate.
It would be suggested to send them an email asking directly if a registered Declaration exists, and ask for the exact math they used for both the new charges and the old ones. If they won't charge you based on your actual square footage, raise it as an issue. And if the building has no formal legal structure, then ensure to put it in writing that you aren't paying.
I hope this answer helps, if you have any other query kindly do not hesitate to contact us. Thank-you.