Telangana High Court Upholds Law Empowering Apartment Associations To Disconnect Water, Power Supply Of Flat Occupants Over Maintenance Dues
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of Section 21 of the Telangana Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 which empowers apartment associations to disconnect essential services like water and electricity from residents who fail to pay maintenance charges.A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar observed,“It may be...
The Telangana High Court has upheld the validity of Section 21 of the Telangana Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 which empowers apartment associations to disconnect essential services like water and electricity from residents who fail to pay maintenance charges.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar observed,
“It may be noticed that an association is required to provide essential services to the apartment owners who reside in the building. At the time of purchasing of the flat, the apartment owner agrees to pay the charges due to association under the byelaws. Funds are required by the association to undertake the activity of maintenance of the building. In the absence of any power to recover the amount due to the association, the very object of providing maintenance charges would be like a toothless tiger. Therefore, the legislative wisdom has provided in Section 21 of the 1987 Act that the manager or board of managers of an association shall have power to cutoff, withhold, curtail or reduce any essential supply or service.”
The writ petition was filed by a company facing water disconnection due to non-payment. It argued that Section 21 was arbitrary and violated their fundamental right to access water.
The High Court's reasoning focused on several key points. Firstly, it acknowledged the state government's authority to enact the 1987 Act, recognizing the need for regulations governing apartment ownership and maintenance.
Delving deeper, the court addressed the company's claim of a fundamental right violation. The Bench clarified that even fundamental rights can be subject to reasonable restrictions. In this case, the court viewed maintenance charges as a legitimate obligation of apartment ownership. Residents enjoy the benefits of shared amenities and services, and contributing to their upkeep is a necessary responsibility, it said. Disconnection of essential services, when done following proper procedures, is a reasonable consequence for non-payment, it added.
Additionally, the court highlighted that the burden of proving a law's invalidity lies with the challenger. In this case, the company couldn't establish that the state legislature lacked the power to enact the Act.
“It is trite law that the validity of a statutory provision can be challenged on twin grounds. Firstly, that the enactment has no legislative competence. Secondly, it is either violative of the fundamental rights or any of the constitutional provisions. It is not the case of the petitioner that the State Legislature has no power to enact the Act.”
However, the court emphasized that Section 21 doesn't grant absolute power to associations. Disconnection of essential services can only occur after following due process. This includes providing a minimum of seven days' notice to the resident and ensuring a "just and sufficient cause" exists, such as non-payment of dues, Court said.
Case no.: WP 4990 of 2024
Counsel for petitioner: A. Raghuram.