Can a Housing Society Deny Common Facilities to Apartment Owners in Karnataka?

Why This Issue Matters for Bangalore Apartment Owners

Apartment disputes often begin with a sentence that sounds simple: “Your flat is smaller, so you pay less maintenance. Therefore, you cannot use the same amenities.”

That statement combines two different legal questions. The first is how much an owner is required to contribute towards common expenses. The second is what rights an owner has to use common areas and facilities. The fact that the answers to the first question may vary according to the size of an apartment does not automatically answer the second question.

This distinction has become especially relevant in Bengaluru because apartment complexes commonly contain different categories of units: studio apartments, 1 BHKs, 2 BHKs, 3 BHKs, penthouses and larger units. They may all share the same entrance, lifts, corridors, security system, swimming pool, gym, clubhouse, gardens, play areas, parking systems, water infrastructure and other facilities.

A dispute can therefore arise when a resident of a smaller unit pays less maintenance under a square-foot or proportionate formula but is told that access to the swimming pool or gym is reserved for owners who pay a higher amount. The legal question is not simply whether one resident pays less. The question is whether the restriction is supported by the governing documents and law, and whether it is a reasonable regulation of a common facility or an impermissible exclusion from a right attached to apartment ownership.

What Counts as a Common Area or Common Facility?

Under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, “common areas and facilities” are broadly defined. They include the land on which the building is located, structural elements, entrances and exits, corridors, stairs, parking areas and various installations and facilities intended for common use. The Act also contemplates community and commercial facilities provided for in the Declaration.

The exact status of a particular amenity should therefore be checked against the Declaration, the apartment’s sale deed, the approved project documents and the association’s bye-laws. A facility described as a common facility in the governing documents is very different from a privately operated service that is expressly offered only on payment of a separate user fee.

The 2025 Purva Seasons Maintenance Dispute in Bengaluru

A Bengaluru civil-court decision in November 2025 brought the maintenance calculation question into sharp focus. The dispute involved Purva Seasons, a large apartment complex with different sizes of flats and a disagreement over the formula used for common maintenance expenses.

The case illustrates why apartment associations should not treat every maintenance question as a simple “bigger flat pays more, smaller flat pays less” calculation. The court examined the relationship between Section 10 of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, the undivided interest attached to apartments, the registered bye-laws and the nature of the services being funded.

The plaintiff’s case was that services such as security, common lighting, lifts, water systems, waste collection and other shared facilities are consumed by residents in a broadly common manner and that flat size should not automatically determine the charge for every service. The association, on the other hand, relied on its registered documents and the maintenance framework adopted for the project.

The legal lesson is important: the formula for calculating maintenance and the right to use a common amenity are related but distinct questions. An owner who disputes a maintenance invoice should not assume that the association can therefore suspend access to all amenities. Likewise, an association should not assume that a court decision about maintenance calculation automatically determines every separate question concerning amenity use.

A Smaller Flat Does Not Automatically Mean Smaller Resident Rights

Apartment ownership is not simply a subscription to a bundle of services priced according to square footage. An apartment owner acquires a legal interest in an individual apartment together with the rights and interests connected to the common property, subject to the governing legal documents.

Consider a 900-square-foot apartment and a 1,800-square-foot apartment in the same building. If the applicable maintenance formula requires the first owner to contribute less than the second, that tells us something about the allocation of expense. It does not, without more, tell us that the first owner is entitled to use only half of the lift, half of the entrance lobby or half of the swimming pool.

Of course, the use of amenities can be regulated. A clubhouse may have booking rules. A swimming pool may have safety requirements. A gym may have age restrictions. A party hall may require a booking charge. A facility may have capacity limits or timings. These are examples of legitimate regulation when they are grounded in the applicable documents and applied fairly.

The problem becomes different when the association says, in substance, “You pay less maintenance because your apartment is smaller, therefore you cannot use a common facility that is otherwise available to apartment owners.” That requires closer legal scrutiny.

What Does the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act Say About Common Expenses?

Section 3(g) of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act defines “common expenses” to include sums lawfully assessed against apartment owners by the Association, expenses of administration, maintenance, repair or replacement of common areas and facilities, expenses agreed upon as common expenses by the bye-laws, and expenses declared as common expenses by the Act, Declaration or bye-laws.

Section 10 also deals with the distribution of common profits and the charging of common expenses according to the percentage of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities. This statutory framework is one reason apartment maintenance disputes can become technically complicated.

The registered Declaration and bye-laws matter enormously. Before deciding whether a maintenance demand is lawful, an advocate should normally inspect the documents that actually govern that particular condominium rather than relying only on a WhatsApp message, informal circular or oral statement by a committee member.

This is also why two apartment projects in Bengaluru can have different disputes even though both are residential complexes. One project may have a registered Declaration containing one method of allocation; another may contain different provisions; a third may have a separate contractual structure. The legal answer must be tied to the documents and facts of the individual project.

What If the Association Says: “You Pay Less, So You Get Less”?

Ask the association to identify the exact legal basis for that statement. The most useful response is usually not an argument in the clubhouse corridor but a written request for the relevant provision.

The 2026 Karnataka Apartment Bill Changes the Landscape

Karnataka has now taken a major legislative step toward a unified apartment-management framework. The Karnataka Legislative Assembly passed the Karnataka Apartment (Ownership and Management) Bill, 2026 on 21 August 2026. The Bill seeks to create a common framework for apartment ownership, owners’ associations and the management of common areas and facilities.

This development is highly relevant to apartment owners because the State government had earlier identified long-standing gaps concerning common-area ownership, association governance, maintenance, financial accountability, redevelopment and dispute resolution.

However, one point is critical for anyone publishing or relying on this article: Assembly passage is not the same as the provisions already operating as law. The Bill must complete the applicable legislative and assent/commencement process before provisions become operative. Until then, the existing legal framework continues to matter for current disputes, subject to the precise facts and any subsequent legal development.

What the 2026 Bill Means for Common Facilities

The 2026 legislation is designed to create a more coherent framework for the ownership and management of common areas and facilities. Reporting on the Bill indicates that common facilities include matters such as roads, open spaces and clubhouses, while the legislative text also addresses facilities such as lifts, lobbies, corridors, parks, gardens, play areas and water-related infrastructure.

The Bill also provides for a common framework for apartment associations rather than the fragmented registration arrangements that have contributed to disputes. The association’s bye-laws are expected to play a central role in administration, management, maintenance and use of common property and facilities.

For owners, the important practical point is that future disputes should become easier to analyse if the new framework is brought into force in its enacted form. But the existence of a new Bill does not mean every present association rule becomes invalid or every current maintenance dispute automatically disappears.

Owners should therefore preserve their current documents and records. A new statute can change the governing framework, but the legal history of a particular apartment project may remain important for determining title, declarations, contractual obligations, past resolutions and pending disputes.

Lower Maintenance Is Not the Same as Maintenance Default

This is one of the most important distinctions in the entire issue.

Suppose an association calculates maintenance at a lawful rate based on apartment size. A 1 BHK is invoiced ₹4,000 and a 3 BHK is invoiced ₹8,000. The 1 BHK owner pays ₹4,000 on time. It would be conceptually different from a resident who is invoiced ₹8,000 and refuses to pay anything.

The first is a question about how the maintenance liability is calculated. The second is a question about default and recovery of dues. An association should not blur the two.

The recent public discussion around apartment amenities in Bengaluru arose precisely because a resident reported being denied access to facilities such as a gym and swimming pool on the ground that the smaller apartment attracted a lower maintenance amount. Legal commentary on that issue has emphasised that common facilities and maintenance obligations should be analysed separately.

If an owner is genuinely in arrears, the association may have legal remedies for recovery depending on the applicable framework and documents. That does not automatically mean every form of amenity restriction is lawful. Essential services are an especially sensitive category, and an association should never resort to coercive measures without taking proper legal advice.

Can an Association Regulate Use of a Common Amenity?

Yes. A common facility is not necessarily an unlimited, unrestricted right to use the facility at any time and in any manner.

When Could a Restriction Become Legally Vulnerable?

A restriction deserves closer legal scrutiny when the association cannot identify a clear legal or contractual basis for it, when the rule conflicts with the registered Declaration or bye-laws, or when similarly situated apartment owners are treated differently without a rational and lawful basis.

Another warning sign is a restriction imposed only through an informal notice from a committee member without the authority required under the governing documents. Associations have powers, but those powers are not unlimited. Their decisions must be tested against the applicable statute, Declaration, bye-laws, sale deeds and properly adopted resolutions.

The same applies to owners. An owner cannot simply decide that an association rule is “illegal” and stop paying all maintenance. If there is a dispute about the amount, it is safer to obtain legal advice on the appropriate way to contest the demand while preserving the owner’s position and avoiding unnecessary default.

Documents to Collect Before Challenging an Apartment Association

Apartment disputes are document-heavy. Before sending a legal notice or approaching a court or authority, collect the documents that establish both your ownership rights and the association’s powers.

Common Apartment Disputes: Where Does Your Problem Fit?

What Legal Remedies May Be Available in Bangalore?

The appropriate remedy depends on the legal structure of the apartment project and the relief being sought. There is no single “apartment society court” for every dispute.

A first step may be an internal representation to the association or a request for the relevant records. Where the dispute concerns a consumer-service relationship or deficiency, consumer-law questions may arise depending on the facts and applicable jurisdiction. Civil proceedings may be appropriate where the dispute concerns contractual rights, declarations, injunctions or other civil relief. The statutory framework applicable to the association may also provide an administrative or competent-authority route, particularly as the new apartment-management framework comes into operation.

The Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act also contains provisions concerning the association and common expenses, while RERA can be relevant to certain promoter-related disputes, especially where the complaint concerns the developer’s obligations rather than an internal owners’ association dispute.

The practical objective should be to choose the forum and remedy that matches the actual problem. Sending a generic legal notice without identifying the legal source of the right can prolong an apartment dispute rather than resolve it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Final Takeaway for Apartment Owners in Karnataka

The short answer to the headline question is this: a smaller apartment or lower maintenance contribution does not automatically mean that the owner has a smaller right to use a common facility.

But that does not mean every amenity dispute will automatically be decided in favour of the smaller-flat owner. The decisive documents may include the registered Declaration, sale deed, undivided-interest provisions, bye-laws, facility rules, maintenance formula, properly adopted resolutions and any special contractual terms.

The recent Bengaluru maintenance litigation demonstrates why the calculation of common expenses can be legally complex. The 2026 Karnataka Apartment (Ownership and Management) Bill adds another important layer by attempting to create a unified framework for apartment ownership, association governance and common facilities.

For an owner facing an actual restriction, the best approach is therefore evidence-first: obtain the rule, obtain the resolution, identify the facility’s legal status, document your payments, compare the treatment of other owners and then choose the appropriate remedy.

If the association is using “you pay less maintenance” as the only reason to deny a common facility, that statement should not be accepted as the end of the legal analysis. The association should be asked to identify the legal and contractual foundation for the restriction.