BENGALURU: A petition against a service provider before Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-Rera) is not maintainable, the high court observed recently.
It made this observation while allowing a petition filed by M/s Columbia Pacific Communities Pvt Ltd. Bengaluru. The petitioner, engaged in the business of providing specialised senior-care services, was collecting common area maintenance charges from residents of Serene Urbana Apartment in Kannamangala, Devanahalli.
Columbia Pacific Communities had challenged K-Rera’s Jan 11 order, holding that a complaint from Serene Urbana Apartment Owners’ Welfare Association against Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited, the project developer, the service provider and others was maintainable.
Challenging the order, the service provider said the association had working disputes with the developer over several issues and it has been dragged into the complaint unnecessarily.
On the other hand, the complainant-association said the petitioner is collecting common area maintenance charges from apartment owners, and its dispute with the developer cannot be decided without the petitioner being a party to those proceedings.
After perusing the materials on record, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that in its complaint, the association sought for restraining the petitioner from mortgaging the land, infrastructure and assets, and increasing the current common area maintenance charges until their issues relating to Serene Urbana Project are sorted out.
The pleadings and the prayer clearly indicate that the dispute is between Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Limited, the project developer, and Apartment Owners’ Welfare Association, as most of the prayers point against other respondents. The ancillary prayers sought in the case at hand are against the petitioner, the judge pointed out.
“The agreement entered into by the petitioner with individual flat owners… is termed a ‘services agreement’. Except for providing services, there is no other obligation on the petitioner’s part with regard to development or other activities of the apartment complex…. In the considered view of this court, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the owner’s liabilities,” the judge observed.
For the folly of others, the petitioner is sought to be dragged into these proceedings. In the considered view of the court, the complaint against the petitioner, who is only a service provider, is not maintainable. Therefore, the dispute is between the respondents and others. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for being the service provider
