High Court: Petition Against Service Provider Before Karnataka RERA Unmaintainable

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court recently observed that a petition filed against a service provider before the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) is not maintainable.

This ruling came as the court allowed a petition filed by M/s Columbia Pacific Communities Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru, a company engaged in providing specialized senior-care services. The petitioner had been collecting common area maintenance charges from residents of Serene Urbana Apartments located in Kannamangala, Devanahalli.

Columbia Pacific Communities challenged a January 11 order issued by K-RERA, which had ruled that a complaint filed by the Serene Urbana Apartment Owners’ Welfare Association against Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited, the project developer, as well as the service provider and others, was maintainable.

The petitioner argued that the association’s disputes with the developer were unrelated to its role as a service provider and that it was unnecessarily dragged into the matter.

The complainant-association maintained that the service provider was collecting common area maintenance charges from apartment owners and insisted that its inclusion in the proceedings was essential, as the dispute with the developer could not be resolved without involving the petitioner.

After examining the records, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the association’s complaint predominantly involved disputes with the developer, Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited.

The complaint sought to restrain the petitioner from mortgaging land, infrastructure, and assets, as well as from increasing common area maintenance charges until issues with the Serene Urbana Project were resolved. The judge noted that most of the prayers in the complaint were directed at the developer and other respondents, with only ancillary requests involving the petitioner.

The court highlighted that the petitioner’s agreements with individual apartment owners were limited to providing specific services, as outlined in the “services agreement.” Justice Nagaprasanna remarked that the petitioner had no obligations concerning the development or other activities of the apartment complex. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner could not be held liable for the liabilities of the apartment owners or the developer.

The court emphasized that the petitioner was being unfairly implicated in the proceedings due to disputes unrelated to its role. “For the folly of others, the petitioner is sought to be dragged into these proceedings. In the considered view of this court, the complaint against the petitioner, who is only a service provider, is not maintainable,” the judge stated.

In its ruling, the High Court concluded that the complaint against Columbia Pacific Communities Pvt Ltd was not maintainable, affirming that the service provider could not be held accountable for the disputes between the apartment owners’ association and the developer.