A recent Bombay High Court ruling has brought attention to the challenges of forming cooperative housing societies across India, particularly spotlighting Maharashtra’s requirement that 51% of flat purchasers must consent for registration. While this ruling directly affects Maharashtra, it reflects broader variations in how states across India regulate society formation.

Housing societies play a critical role in India’s urban landscape, providing a legal structure for residential self-governance and property management. However, each state operates under its Cooperative Societies Act. Maharashtra follows the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, Delhi adheres to the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, and Karnataka has its own version. Despite these legal differences, the objective remains the same, enabling residents to collectively manage their community and its affairs.

Registration thresholds vary widely across states. Maharashtra mandates that over half of the flat owners must sign off before a society is registered. In contrast, states like Haryana and Uttar Pradesh require as few as seven members, while others follow majority-based thresholds similar to Maharashtra.

The registration process typically requires an application detailing the members, proposed bylaws, and supporting documents. Once submitted, the registrar assesses whether all statutory conditions are met before granting legal status. Upon registration, societies gain formal rights to collect maintenance, sign contracts, and manage the premises according to the approved bylaws.

For homebuyers, confirming the registration status of a society has become a key factor during property purchases. Unregistered societies limit the community’s ability to enforce rules, address disputes, or carry out essential maintenance. Many buyers now inquire specifically about occupancy levels and society registration before finalizing deals.

Threshold rules, like Maharashtra’s 51%, are designed to ensure societies have sufficient participation before they gain legal standing. They serve to stabilize governance by reducing risks associated with societies formed by small or inactive groups of owners.

For developers, differing thresholds across states create operational challenges. A builder working in Maharashtra, Delhi, and Karnataka must navigate distinct legal processes, often adjusting timelines based on local regulations before transitioning management to residents.

As Indian cities continue to expand and more residents shift to gated communities and apartment complexes, understanding these thresholds and legal frameworks has become vital. The process marks a shift from builder-led operations to resident-driven governance, with active stakeholder participation crucial for smooth community management.

Across India’s metropolitan hubs, these legal prerequisites remain a fundamental step in creating transparent and effective housing societies, regardless of state-specific variations.

In recent years, a notable trend has emerged across gated communities in India, the implementation of standardised rate cards for domestic workers. These cards establish fixed prices for specific household tasks such as cleaning and cooking, aiming to create consistency in payments and prevent what some residents refer to as “bidding wars” between households competing for reliable help. This practice has gained traction, particularly in upscale residential areas across major Indian cities. 

“Before implementing the rate card system, we often found domestic workers negotiating higher wages by citing better offers from other households,” explains Anita, an RWA president from a society in Gurugram. For many residents, especially senior citizens on fixed incomes, these standardized rates offer financial predictability. “On a limited pension, keeping up with rising wage demands has become difficult. The rate card gives us some stability,” shares Ramesh, a retired government employee living in a high-rise in Bengaluru.

However, the system has not been without controversy. “While maids and cooks are demanding higher pay, a proposed 20% wage increase faced strong opposition from residents. Many worry that revising the rates will lead to further demands,” admits a member of an operations committee from a large complex.

For domestic workers, the impact of rate cards extends beyond their monthly earnings. “I work in two homes, earning ₹4,000 from each. To make ends meet, I also drive a taxi at night,” says Latha, a 32-year-old single mother. Meena, a cook and cleaner with ten years of experience, echoes similar frustrations: “When I ask for a raise because everything is getting more expensive, residents point to the rate card and say their hands are tied.” Workers’ primary concerns include limited negotiating power, lack of input in setting rates, and the risk of replacement if they demand wages above the established figures.

Some communities are adopting middle-ground approaches. A growing number of residential complexes are shifting toward hourly wages instead of fixed monthly salaries. “Residents relocating from Western countries have introduced this concept, and many domestic workers prefer it since it provides clearer compensation for their time,” notes a resident from a prestigious society in Koramangala. Other communities are revising their rate cards to account for inflation and incorporate benefits like paid leave and festival bonuses. “We consulted with domestic workers’ representatives before updating our rate card,” shares an RWA secretary from Chennai. “Now, we review it annually and ensure the wages are fair and not exploitative.”

The debate surrounding domestic worker rate cards highlights broader issues of labor rights and economic fairness. While India lacks a central law governing domestic workers’ wages, some states including Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Kerala have established minimum wage regulations for domestic work. The International Labour Organization recognizes domestic work as formal employment, advocating for proper contracts, fair wages, and social security benefits.

As urban India navigates these evolving socioeconomic dynamics, striking a balance between residents’ desire for consistency and domestic workers’ right to fair compensation remains an ongoing conversation.

Recently, a notable Karnataka high court ruling directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to implement stringent preventive measures against illegal building activities. The court mandated that property owners, architects, and supervisors submit affidavits at various construction stages, confirming adherence to sanctioned plans. Additionally, the BBMP is required to conduct periodic inspections every 30 days to ensure compliance.

The Karnataka HC ordered the demolition of unauthorized floors in a residential complex in Bengaluru’s Peenya area. The court instructed the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to dismantle the illegally constructed 14th and 15th floors of a tower in IBC Platinum City, emphasizing the necessity for strict enforcement of building regulations. This shows even if its a luxury apartment nobody has the authority to bypass laws.

The legal framework governing construction modifications varies across Indian states. The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, requires that any structural changes receive prior approval from municipal authorities. Similarly, the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act mandates obtaining prior written consent from relevant authorities before making alterations. The Delhi Development Authority’s Master Plan 2021 explicitly prohibits structural modifications that deviate from approved building plans, with Section 14 of the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act allowing associations to challenge violations affecting common areas or structural stability.

Despite clear regulations, enforcement remains challenging. A legal expert in property law, stated that while laws are explicit, enforcement often involves multiple authorities, leading to jurisdictional overlaps and delays. This complexity necessitates coordinated efforts between RWAs, municipal bodies, and regulatory agencies to effectively address unauthorized constructions.

Proactive measures are being adopted in various regions. In Bengaluru, the BBMP has been directed to integrate its database with the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) and Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (BESCOM). This integration aims to monitor new water and electricity connections, ensuring they correspond with approved building plans and helping to identify unauthorized constructions.

As this regulatory landscape continues to evolve, the focus is shifting from reactive enforcement to preventive compliance. With courts providing clearer guidelines and municipal bodies strengthening their monitoring systems, the framework for managing unauthorized constructions is becoming more robust. The growing collaboration between RWAs, regulatory bodies, and residents suggests that the future of urban housing may lie in finding the delicate balance between individual needs and structural integrity – but who will take the lead in this transformation?

A recent Mumbai court ruling has brought significant attention to how housing societies calculate maintenance fees, declaring that charging based on flat size is legally unsound. The decision came after a resident challenged her society’s practice of billing per square foot, arguing that maintenance costs should be equally shared, irrespective of apartment size. The court upheld this claim, citing a previous Bombay High Court judgment that stated, “There is absolutely no rational basis for societies to charge for services based on the size of flats.”

This ruling has sparked widespread discussions among Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) in Mumbai, as societies reconsider their billing structures. The case has also drawn attention to how maintenance charges are calculated in different parts of India. While some cities follow per-square-foot billing, others have legal frameworks that lean toward equal distribution.

The Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986, for example, states under Section 19(1) that maintenance expenses should be shared based on the percentage of undivided interest in common areas. This means that in many cases, larger apartment owners may still be required to pay higher charges. However, in Delhi’s cooperative housing societies, courts have previously ruled in favour of equal distribution, especially when expenses relate to shared services such as security, water supply, and common area maintenance. A facility manager from Delhi said, “Most societies resist change, but we should follow legal frameworks. The per-square-foot model is outdated.”

In Karnataka, the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, outlines that common expenses must be lawfully assessed by the Association of Apartment Owners. While the law does not specify how maintenance should be divided, many Bengaluru societies still follow the per-square-foot model, though instances of legal challenges against this convention have been rising.

This is not the first time Indian courts have addressed the issue of maintenance billing. In 2017, a Saket District Court ruling in Delhi supported residents who opposed the per-square-foot model, emphasizing that larger apartments do not inherently consume more security, common lighting, or clubhouse access than smaller ones. This case led to several RWAs in Delhi revising their fee structures.

The ruling has received mixed reactions from RWA members and residents. A Mumbai RWA member expressed concerns, stating, “This ruling will cause a major shake-up; societies will have to revise their by-laws.” A Pune resident who has been paying almost double the maintenance fee compared to her neighbors in smaller flats remarked, “If Mumbai courts ruled against it, it’s time for other cities to follow suit.”

With this ruling, Mumbai’s RWAs may now need to amend their bylaws and explore alternative billing models, such as fixed-rate systems or usage-based charges. Societies that continue charging based on a square foot billing model may face legal challenges, and as the news of the ruling spreads, RWAs in other cities may come under increased scrutiny.

Here are 8 things to keep in mind when new to RWA responsibilities.

1. Gather opinions, but let the RWA decide

The Residents’ Forum is a great space to gather feedback, but decision-making should rest with the RWA. Residents who haven’t served in the RWA may lack the complete picture, and letting them decide directly can create polarization. An RWA that listens to all but makes balanced decisions internally earns trust and respect from the community.

2. The RWA office is not a corporate office

In an RWA, there is no corporate-style hierarchy or reporting line. Decisions are made collectively, through consensus. You won’t win every debate, but being a team player ensures smoother operations and better outcomes.

3. Know the legal risks

Visible risks like fire or crime, are just the tip of the iceberg. Hidden risks often arise from within the community itself. Be prepared for surprises—ensure the RWA has legal counsel ready to handle any challenges that come its way.

4. Experts make a difference—outsource wisely

Relying on members for critical tasks like accounting or keeping manpower on your payroll are common mistakes. Outsource to experts who can bring professionalism and accountability to the table. Let them handle the heavy lifting while the RWA focuses on the bigger picture.

5. Quality is an investment, not an expense

Choosing the cheapest manager, security agency, software, or hardware might save money in the short term but often leads to bigger issues down the line. Investing in quality services and solutions protects property value and ensures long-term sustainability for the community.

6. Build a culture of simple, enforceable rules

Instead of overcomplicating things, draft a few practical rules that suit a residential community. Enforce them consistently to foster a culture of responsibility. Simple rules, well-implemented, create harmony in the long run.

7. Avoid risky financial shortcuts

RWAs should avoid strategies that cut corners on compliance, especially with taxes. While these approaches may seem efficient at first, they can lead to trouble. Future RWA members might have to bear the brunt of legal issues, long after the original strategists are gone.

8. Respect the time of RWA members

No RWA member can handle everything alone. Create a collaborative environment where multiple members can share the workload. Set up systems and processes that make it easier for the next RWA to take over. A proper handover ceremony can acknowledge efforts and build goodwill.

Highlights

• 72% of gated communities reported frequently encountering issues during the move-in/move-out process, indicating it is a recurring problem for many communities.
• The most common issues cited were incomplete documentation (68%), unapproved moving timings (64%), and unpaid dues (60%).
• 60% of RWAs prefer addressing these issues through direct communication with residents, while smaller portions use fines (16%) or verbal warnings (16%).
• In terms of scheduling, 48% prefer flexible scheduling with prior notice, but 36% enforce pre-approved time slots to manage moves effectively.
• A minority of 12% have no specific policy in place, while another 12% allow residents to move anytime without restrictions.
• The data reflects a need for more structured policies to manage the move-in/move-out process, with communication and documentation being areas of improvement.

Managing the move-in and move-out process is one of the most challenging, yet crucial, aspects of housing society management. Often overlooked until a problem arises, this plays a vital role in maintaining order and harmony in any residential community.

Recently, a Mygate survey took a closer look at the challenges faced during move-ins and move-outs, revealing just how common these issues are. The findings show that 72% of respondents reported encountering frequent problems, proving this isn’t just an occasional hiccup but a widespread concern. Challenges such as incomplete documentation, unapproved moving timings, and unpaid dues surfaced as the most frequent causes of concern for both residents and RWAs. Sunita Gupta, an RWA treasurer from Delhi, described how these situations affect the community: “Movers often show up at odd hours, or residents leave without clearing their dues, causing tension among other residents.”

One of the most significant issues, according to 68% of respondents, is incomplete documentation. The lack of proper paperwork can lead to delays and frustration. Ajay Mehra, a resident from Bangalore, recalled his experience: “When I moved in, the delay in getting security clearance was frustrating because the paperwork wasn’t properly communicated to the gate staff.” This common oversight often results in unnecessary delays, leading to dissatisfaction for both new residents and the admin staff handling the process.

The survey also highlighted the challenge of unapproved moving timings, with 64% of respondents citing this as a major problem. It’s not just about a minor inconvenience; unplanned move-outs can disrupt the peace of the entire community. Residents from Mumbai and Hyderabad RWAs shared similar experiences: “We once had a resident move out at 5 a.m., causing a lot of noise and waking up neighbours,” said one admin. Unapproved moving times not only disturb the tranquillity of a housing society but can also lead to complaints and friction among neighbours.

Financial concerns also rank high on the list of issues, with 60% of respondents mentioning unpaid dues as a recurring problem. Residents moving out without settling their financial obligations can leave societies in difficult situations. Shalini Desai, an admin from Pune, voiced her concerns: “Making sure residents pay their dues before moving out is always a challenge. If not handled properly, it can lead to financial complications for the society.” This is why clear and enforceable procedures need to be in place for managing such situations.

While many societies handle move-ins and move-outs on a flexible basis, 36% of respondents expressed a preference for pre-approved time slots. A structured approach minimizes disturbances and ensures smooth coordination during busy moving periods. “Since introducing pre-approved time slots and better documentation checks, we’ve seen a noticeable drop in resident dissatisfaction during peak move-in seasons,” shared the RWA head of a society in Bengaluru.

Managing move-ins and move-outs is often a delicate balancing act for gated communities. Incomplete paperwork, unapproved timings, and unpaid dues remain recurring issues, as highlighted in the survey, fueling ongoing debates about the best way to handle these challenges effectively.