Appeal No. 10 of 2020, Order dated 6 January 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Island), in its Order in Appeal No. 10 of 2020 dated 6 January 2020, dismissed as withdrawn an appeal by M/s. Amarprakash Property Management Services Private Limited concerning lift access restrictions at the Temple Waves apartments. The Tribunal allowed the company to ask the Real Estate Regulatory Authority to decide, as a preliminary issue, whether the residents’ complaint was maintainable.
What the case concerned
The Order in Appeal No. 10 of 2020 dated 6 January 2020 arose from a complaint by the Temple Waves all Blocks Flat Owners Welfare Association against M/s. Amarprakash Property Management Services Private Limited. Residents alleged excessive maintenance charges, lack of expense details, missing promised amenities, unpaid workers and poor staff behaviour.
The residents also alleged that lift access cards were issued only to people whose maintenance payments were up to date. They said other owners and residents had to use the stairs, including at late hours. The association asked the Real Estate Regulatory Authority to terminate the maintenance agreement and prevent restrictions on lift use.
Interim protection for residents
The Real Estate Regulatory Authority had passed an interim order in Complaint No. 444 of 2019 on 29 November 2019. Its directions included:
- M/s. Amarprakash Property Management Services Private Limited was not to deny residents access to the lifts until final orders were passed.
- Denial of access was to be removed immediately with effect from 2 December 2019.
- Compliance was to be reported before 3 December 2019.
- The company was directed to file its counter in the complaint.
The property management company appealed against the interim order and also asked for the complaint to be struck off as not maintainable.
What the Tribunal decided
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal did not decide whether the residents’ complaint was maintainable. The company argued that it was not a promoter, real estate agent or allottee and therefore did not fall within the provision relied upon by the residents.
The Tribunal noted that the company had approached it before presenting its case to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. At the hearing on 6 January 2020, the company requested permission to withdraw the appeal while retaining the right to raise the maintainability issue before the Authority.
The Tribunal therefore:
- permitted the company to withdraw the appeal;
- dismissed the appeal as withdrawn;
- allowed the company to approach the Authority on maintainability; and
- stated that the Authority should decide maintainability as a preliminary issue.
Who is affected
The Order in Appeal No. 10 of 2020 directly concerns M/s. Amarprakash Property Management Services Private Limited and the owners and residents represented by the Temple Waves all Blocks Flat Owners Welfare Association. It records a case specific procedural result and does not decide the wider question of whether a property management company may restrict lift access for unpaid maintenance charges.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Did the Tribunal allow the property manager to restrict lift access?
No such permission was given. The appeal against the Authority’s interim direction not to deny residents lift access was withdrawn, and the Tribunal did not decide the wider legality of lift restrictions.
Did the Tribunal decide that the residents’ complaint was maintainable?
No. The Tribunal allowed M/s. Amarprakash Property Management Services Private Limited to raise that question before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, which was to consider it as a preliminary issue.
Was Complaint No. 444 of 2019 struck off?
No. Although the company requested that the complaint be struck off as not maintainable, it withdrew its appeal and was given liberty to raise maintainability before the Authority.
Why did the residents approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authority?
They complained about maintenance charges, lack of expense details, missing amenities, staffing issues and restricted lift access for residents who had not paid maintenance charges.
