[283] Jagdish Kumar Vatika City Apartment Owners Association and another Coram : Present: PANKAJ JAIN [1] maintenance charges [2] petitioner, refers to the written statement of RWA that once the condominium was handed over to the association only w.e.f. 01.08.2019, they have no right to charge He also relies upon Certificate till date i.e. 06.11.2023 stands issued and thus the petitioner cannot be said to be in arrears [3] submit that the plaintiff is liable to pay maintenance charges from the date of deed of declaration executed under Section 11 (2) of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4952- Date of Decision : Jagdish Kumar versus Vatika City Apartment Owners Association and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate Advocate and Mr. Jagraj Singh, for respondent No.1. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The issue in the lis is whether the plaintiff is required to pay the maintenance charges or not. Mr. Chopra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, refers to the written statement of RWA that once the condominium was handed over to the association only w.e.f. 01.08.2019, they have no right to charge He also relies upon communication dated 06.11.2023, claiming that No Due Certificate till date i.e. 06.11.2023 stands issued and thus the petitioner cannot be said to be in arrears for the time Per contra, Mr. Verma, counsel for respondent No.1, would submit that the plaintiff is liable to pay maintenance charges from the date of deed of declaration executed under Section 11 (2) of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.04.2026 …Petitioner versus ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN Advocate with Mr. Varun Aryan the petitioner. Advocate with Mr. Yashvir Balhara, and Mr. Jagraj Singh, Advocate is whether the plaintiff is required to pay the Mr. Chopra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, refers to the written statement of RWA-defendant No.1 to submit that once the condominium was handed over to the association only w.e.f. 01.08.2019, they have no right to charge maintenance charges w.e.f. 2012. dated 06.11.2023, claiming that No Due Certificate till date i.e. 06.11.2023 stands issued and thus the petitioner for the time prior to 06.11.2023. . Verma, counsel for respondent No.1, would submit that the plaintiff is liable to pay maintenance charges from the date of deed of declaration executed under Section 11 (2) of the Haryana Apartment Mr. Varun Aryan Mr. Yashvir Balhara, is whether the plaintiff is required to pay the Mr. Chopra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant No.1 to submit that once the condominium was handed over to the association only w.e.f. w.e.f. 2012. dated 06.11.2023, claiming that No Due Certificate till date i.e. 06.11.2023 stands issued and thus the petitioner . Verma, counsel for respondent No.1, would submit that the plaintiff is liable to pay maintenance charges from the date of deed of declaration executed under Section 11 (2) of the Haryana Apartment RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.01 16:27 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-4952-2024 (O&M) -2- [4] This revision is against order passed on application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. [5] Since the main issue is pending consideration before the Civil Court, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose off the present revision petition in the following terms:- (i) That the petitioner-plaintiff shall clear the entire arrears of maintenance w.e.f. 01.08.2019 and shall continue to pay current charges. (ii) The respondent(s)-defendant(s) shall restore all amenities to which the plaintiff is entitled forthwith including provisioning of the electricity connection. (iii) The plaintiff shall deposit 50% of the arrears within a week. On such deposit, all the amenities including electricity connection will be restored/provided to the petitioner. (iv) The remaining 50% amount of the arrears shall be deposited further within a further period of one month. [6] The deposit as well as the provisioning of the amenities shall be subject to the final decision of the suit. The order has been passed with the consent of counsel(s) appearing for the rival parties. [7] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 27.04.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.01 16:27 I agree to specified portions of this document