News Citation: 2026 LN (CGRERA) 9
The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Raipur, has dismissed a complaint filed by the promoter of the “Park Serene” residential project in Labhandi, Raipur, seeking recovery of alleged outstanding maintenance charges from an allottee. The Authority held that the claim was barred by limitation and was unsupported by proper documentation, while granting liberty to the promoter to file a fresh, legally compliant application for permissible periods.
The dispute arose from a complaint filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, by the promoter, Ashiyana Builders and Colonizers, through its partner. The promoter alleged that the allottee, who purchased Plot No. 69 measuring 2056 sq. ft. for a total consideration of ₹40 lakh, had failed to pay maintenance charges after the expiry of an initial exemption period. According to the promoter, maintenance was fixed at ₹2 per sq. ft. per month and despite repeated requests and notices, the allottee had allegedly defaulted, leaving arrears of ₹3,12,512 along with interest at 18 percent per annum.
The allottee contested the claim, arguing that the project itself was incomplete, possession and handover to the society had not taken place, and several promised amenities were either non-functional or absent. It was further argued that maintenance charges were never clearly agreed upon in the sale agreement, that no detailed account of actual expenses was provided, and that demands were raised arbitrarily after several years. The allottee also pointed out that maintenance charges, if any, should be based on actual expenditure and collected through a designated society account, not the promoter’s account.
After examining the pleadings, documents, and statutory provisions, the Authority observed that while maintenance can be recovered under the Act, such recovery must be lawful, reasonable, supported by records, and raised within the prescribed limitation period. The Authority noted that the promoter had raised a consolidated claim covering several past years in a single application, well beyond the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. The argument that maintenance is a “continuous cause of action” was rejected, with the Authority clarifying that while maintenance obligations may be recurring, claims must still be raised within a reasonable and legally permissible timeframe.
The Authority also found that the promoter had failed to place on record any concrete evidence justifying the fixed rate of ₹2 per sq. ft. per month, such as audited accounts, actual expenditure statements, or contractual provisions clearly authorising such charges. In the absence of these details, the claim was held to be vague and unsustainable.
Accordingly, the complaint seeking recovery of ₹3.12 lakh along with interest was dismissed. However, the Authority granted liberty to the promoter to file a fresh application strictly in accordance with law, limited to periods falling within the limitation period, and supported by proper documentation and justification of maintenance expenses.
The order, dated January 14, 2026, reiterates that while promoters are entitled to recover legitimate maintenance charges, such claims must comply with statutory requirements, contractual terms, and principles of fairness and transparency.
