Can Ground-Floor Residents Refuse to Pay for Lift Repairs? Here’s What Housing Society Rules Say

A lift may be used more frequently by residents living on higher floors, but that does not necessarily mean they alone are responsible for its maintenance and repair costs.

This question often creates disagreements in cooperative housing societies. Ground-floor and first-floor members sometimes argue that they rarely use the lift and therefore should not have to contribute towards expensive repair work. Their argument is simple: “Those who use the lift should pay for it.”

However, housing society expenses are generally not calculated only on the basis of how frequently an individual member uses a common facility.

A Common Facility Means a Shared Responsibility

A lift is an important part of a residential building's common infrastructure. It is installed for the benefit and convenience of residents and forms part of the facilities that the society is expected to maintain.

The fact that one resident uses the lift several times a day while another hardly uses it does not change the nature of the facility.

Think about it this way: a resident may never use the staircase lighting during the day, rarely visit the garden, or never use another common facility. That does not automatically mean the person can exclude themselves from every expense associated with maintaining the building.

A housing society functions through collective contributions for its common services and infrastructure.

What Happens When the Lift Needs a Major Repair?

Suppose a building's lift develops a serious technical problem and requires repairs costing a significant amount.

Residents on the upper floors may obviously be more dependent on the lift. Meanwhile, residents on the ground floor may say they can comfortably use the stairs and therefore do not want to contribute.

This may appear reasonable from an individual point of view, but society accounting generally works differently.

The cost of maintaining a common facility cannot ordinarily be divided according to each member's personal usage unless a specific rule provides for such a method.

For a lift, the applicable cooperative housing society bye-laws provide a specific framework.

The Important Role of Bye-Laws 65 to 71

The model bye-laws dealing with cooperative housing societies contain provisions concerning the collection and allocation of different society expenses.

Bye-laws 65 to 71 cover various aspects of society charges.

Bye-law 65 deals with service charges and identifies the expenses that can form part of these charges. The maintenance and repair of the lift is included among the relevant expenses.

This is significant because it means that lift maintenance is treated as part of the society's common service expenditure rather than as a personal expense of individual lift users.

What Does Bye-Law 67(A)(4) Provide?

One of the key provisions in this context is Bye-law 67(A)(4).

The provision deals specifically with expenses related to the maintenance and repair of lifts. It provides for the cost to be recovered equally from the members of the building where the lift is provided, subject to the applicable rules and legal requirements.

Therefore, a member generally cannot claim an automatic exemption merely by stating:

“I live on the ground floor, so I don't use the lift.”

Similarly, a first-floor member cannot ordinarily refuse the applicable contribution simply because taking the stairs is more convenient.

The relevant obligation arises from the rules governing the common facility, not from a record of how many times a particular resident presses the lift button.

Why Usage-Based Billing Would Be Difficult

Imagine a 20-member building where 15 residents use the lift regularly and five residents rarely use it.

If the society decided to charge according to usage, it would need to establish how often each member used the lift.

Would a person who uses it ten times a day pay more than someone who uses it twice? What about children, elderly family members or visitors? How would emergency use be calculated?

Such questions demonstrate why common facilities are generally maintained through a collective contribution system rather than a personal-use calculation.

Ground Floor Does Not Mean Exempt From Every Common Expense

Ground-floor residents understandably have a different relationship with the lift than residents living on the tenth or fifteenth floor.

But the lower level of a flat does not automatically remove a member's responsibility towards the common infrastructure of the building.

The lift remains available as part of the building's shared facilities. Circumstances can also change. A resident who does not currently use the lift may need it in the future.

For example, an emergency, an injury, heavy luggage, or the need to assist an elderly or mobility-impaired person could make the lift useful even to a ground-floor resident.

The larger point is that common expenses are generally connected with maintaining the property, not with measuring individual consumption of every facility.

Not Every Society Charge Is Calculated in the Same Way

Another important point is that members should not assume that all society charges follow one calculation method.

Different categories of expenses can have different rules.

Certain expenses, such as property tax, building repairs and maintenance, and sinking fund contributions, may be calculated according to the basis prescribed under the applicable rules, including area-based calculations where applicable.

Service charges can have a different method of allocation.

Therefore, whenever members receive a repair bill, they should first identify what the expense is, which bye-law applies to it, and how the amount has been calculated.

What Should Members Do If They Disagree With the Amount?

Disagreement over a repair bill does not necessarily have to become a personal dispute between residents.

A member who believes the charge is incorrect can ask the managing committee for:

• Details of the repair work.

• Repair estimates or quotations.

• The basis on which the cost has been divided.

• The relevant bye-law or society resolution.

• Details of the amount being recovered from each member.

This allows the issue to be discussed based on documents and applicable rules rather than personal opinions.

At the same time, members should be careful about simply withholding payment without understanding their obligations under the applicable bye-laws and law.

What Should the Managing Committee Do?

The managing committee also has an important responsibility.

When major lift repairs are required, the committee should follow the applicable society procedure, maintain proper records and communicate relevant information to members.

The society should also ensure that the repair expenditure is properly accounted for and that contributions are recovered according to the applicable rules.

Clear communication can prevent a relatively straightforward repair issue from turning into a long-running dispute among residents.

The Principle Also Matters for Apartment Owners

The same broad principle can arise in apartment ownership arrangements.

The Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act contains provisions dealing with common areas, common facilities and expenses associated with them. Section 17 addresses the share of an apartment owner in common expenses.

Therefore, the argument that an owner can completely avoid a common expense simply because they personally do not use a particular facility should not be assumed to be valid.

The exact rights and obligations, however, should always be checked against the applicable law, declaration, bye-laws and other governing documents.

Why Common Maintenance Works Differently

A housing society is not simply a collection of individual flats. It is also a system for managing shared property.

The roof, structure, corridors, electrical systems, water systems, security arrangements and lifts are examples of infrastructure that may require ongoing maintenance.

Some residents may use certain facilities more than others. That difference does not necessarily change the collective nature of the underlying expense.

The purpose of maintenance contributions is to keep the property functioning and preserve common infrastructure for the members.

Final Takeaway

The argument “I don't use the lift, so I should not pay for its repair” may sound logical from an individual perspective, but it does not by itself create an exemption from an applicable common expense.

Under the cited cooperative housing society bye-laws, lift maintenance and repair expenses are included among the relevant service expenses, with the applicable provision providing for equal recovery from members of the building where the lift is provided.

Therefore, ground-floor and first-floor members should not assume that they are automatically exempt from lift repair costs simply because they normally use the stairs.

At the same time, the society should also follow the proper procedure, clearly explain the expense and maintain transparent records.

In a housing society, the key question is usually not how many times a member uses a common facility, but how the applicable rules require the cost of maintaining that facility to be shared.