CGRERA Dismisses Builder’s Claim for Maintenance Dues Over Lack of Specific Details

News Citation : 2026 LN (CG-RERA) 38

June 10, 2026 : In a significant order concerning maintenance obligations in real estate projects, the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (CGRERA) has dismissed a complaint filed by a developer seeking recovery of maintenance charges from a plot owner in a registered housing project, holding that the claim could not be granted in the absence of clear particulars regarding the period for which the dues were allegedly payable. The decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and documentary clarity in proceedings under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The matter arose from a complaint filed by M/s Vaicon Ashiana Developers through its partner Sunil Sahu, promoter of the registered project “Swastik Park Avenue” situated at Bhurkoni in Raipur district. The developer approached CGRERA under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, alleging that an allottee, Jyoti Singh, had failed to pay maintenance charges despite repeated requests and reminders. According to the complaint, the allottee had purchased Plot No. L-02 in the project through a registered sale deed executed on 8 November 2021 and was liable to contribute maintenance charges at the agreed rate for upkeep of common facilities and services within the colony.

The promoter contended that maintenance services and common amenities were continuously being provided to all residents and that the respondent had allegedly defaulted in payment of maintenance charges for eight months. The developer claimed that a sum of ₹6,528 remained outstanding and asserted that several oral communications and written reminders had been issued seeking payment. It was further alleged that despite being informed about the outstanding dues, the allottee failed to clear the amount, resulting in violation of statutory obligations under the RERA framework.

Relying on Section 19(6) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the promoter argued that an allottee is legally obligated to make payments, including maintenance and other related charges demanded by the promoter in accordance with the law and contractual arrangements. The complaint sought directions for recovery of the alleged arrears along with interest and a further direction requiring timely payment of future maintenance charges.

The authority noted that notices were issued to the respondent through registered post and electronic communication. However, no appearance was made on behalf of the allottee despite multiple opportunities. The record showed that the respondent did not participate in the proceedings, following which the matter proceeded ex parte before the authority.

While examining the dispute, CGRERA framed issues relating to its jurisdiction, limitation, and the entitlement of the complainant to the relief sought. The authority observed that the project was duly registered under RERA and that the dispute arose between a promoter and an allottee concerning obligations under the Act. Consequently, the authority held that it possessed jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 31 of the Act. It also found the complaint maintainable from the standpoint of limitation because maintenance obligations constitute a continuing cause of action.

However, on the merits of the case, the authority found deficiencies in the promoter’s claim. CGRERA acknowledged that under Sections 19(6) and 19(7) of the RERA Act, an allottee is required to pay maintenance and other charges as prescribed, while promoters have obligations regarding maintenance and provision of services under Section 11(4)(d). The authority further noted that such maintenance liability generally continues until transfer of management to the residents’ association or cooperative society as contemplated under Section 17 of the Act.

Despite recognising the statutory obligation of allottees to contribute towards maintenance expenses, the authority declined to grant relief to the promoter because the complaint failed to clearly specify the exact period for which maintenance charges were being claimed. CGRERA observed that although the developer alleged that eight months’ maintenance charges were outstanding, the complaint did not disclose “for which specific eight-month period” the amount had become due. The authority effectively held that relief could not be granted on the basis of assumptions where the claim itself lacked essential details necessary for adjudication.

In its key observation, the authority stated that while payment of maintenance charges is indeed the responsibility of an allottee under the RERA framework, the complainant had not clearly established the period of default and therefore the relief sought could not be granted. The authority observed that “maintenance charges may be payable by the allottee under the Act, but the complaint does not clearly disclose the specific period for which the demand has been raised,” making it inappropriate to award recovery merely on inference.

Consequently, after considering the pleadings, documents and submissions placed on record, CGRERA dismissed the complaint and refused to issue directions for recovery of the claimed maintenance amount or interest thereon.

The ruling carries practical significance for both developers and property purchasers. While reaffirming that allottees are legally required to pay maintenance and related charges under RERA, the order underscores that promoters seeking recovery through regulatory proceedings must present clear, specific and properly documented claims. The decision serves as a reminder that even where a statutory liability exists, relief may be denied if the claim lacks sufficient particulars or supporting details necessary for judicial scrutiny.

Case Reference: M/s Vaicon Ashiana Developers through Partner Sunil Sahu v. Jyoti Singh, CGRERA Raipur, Complaint No. PRO-2026-03578, relating to Project Swastik Park Avenue (RERA Registration No. PCGRERA061219001082)