Solving Multi-Tower Common Area Disputes in Bangalore

By the Property Law Team | Legal Brigade | Bar Council of Karnataka

When a multi-tower Bangalore apartment project has a common area dispute between towers over shared amenities like clubhouse, parking or landscaped garden, flat buyers in either tower inherit unresolved governance conflict that affects maintenance costs, access rights and long-term property value.

Why Do Common Area Disputes Arise Between Towers in Bangalore Projects?

Multi-tower projects in Bangalore are increasingly common as large land parcels are developed in phases, with each tower forming a sub-community within the broader project. When the towers were initially sold, the developer may have represented that all towers would share certain common facilities, including a single large clubhouse, a central garden, a common parking area and a swimming pool. As the project matures and associations take over governance, the towers that feel they are contributing more maintenance than they are benefiting demand a revision of the sharing arrangement. Towers with fewer amenities argue the sharing is unfair. The overall project’s association structure, whether there is a single project-level association or separate tower associations, determines whether these disputes can be resolved internally or require legal intervention.

The root cause is almost always ambiguous documentation at the time of sale. Developers market the project as a unified community with shared amenities, but the individual tower sale agreements, RERA registrations and bye-laws do not clearly specify which tower pays what share or which tower has access to which facility. When the developer exits and resident associations take over, the absence of a clear sharing formula becomes a source of persistent conflict. Legal Brigade’s experience with multi-tower Bangalore projects confirms that the most effective prevention is a clear, documented sharing agreement executed before any dispute arises.

Common area disputes between towers in multi-phase Bangalore projects are increasingly coming to Legal Brigade as large 2018-2022 era projects mature and their associations face governance challenges. The most common dispute is maintenance cost allocation, particularly where one tower is significantly larger than another and the developer’s original documentation was vague about sharing ratios. These disputes are not minor administrative matters. They affect monthly maintenance bills, access to amenities the buyer paid for and the building’s reputation in the resale market.

What Are the Specific Legal Risks of Common Area Disputes for Individual Flat Buyers?

The restricted access risk is the most immediately felt. A buyer who purchased a flat in Tower A based on the developer’s representation that all towers share the clubhouse may find that Tower B’s association has installed access control or claimed exclusive rights to the facility. The buyer has paid for the amenity, the purchase price reflected the amenity value, but the buyer cannot use it. This is not merely an inconvenience. It is a material breach of the representation on which the purchase decision was made.

The increased maintenance burden is equally serious. If Tower A has 100 flats and Tower B has 50 flats, but the common area maintenance is split equally rather than proportionally, Tower B’s residents pay twice their fair share per flat while Tower A’s residents underpay. When Tower B’s association refuses to continue the unequal arrangement, Tower A’s residents must absorb the full cost or lose access. The buyer’s monthly maintenance, which was budgeted based on the original sharing formula, suddenly increases.

Legal costs from inter-tower litigation drain the association’s reserve fund. Even if the association wins, the legal fees are paid from the maintenance fund, which means all residents bear the cost. In some cases, the litigation continues for years, with multiple rounds of appeals, further depleting reserves and delaying resolution.

Resale complication is a longer-term risk. A prospective buyer’s lawyer conducting due diligence will discover the inter-tower dispute and advise the buyer to either avoid the property or negotiate a lower price. The dispute becomes a permanent discount on the property’s market value until it is resolved.

Building plan ambiguity is the most fundamental risk. If the sanctioned building plan does not clearly show which common areas are for all towers collectively and which are for specific towers individually, there is no authoritative document to resolve the dispute. The dispute then requires court intervention, which is slow, expensive and uncertain.

What Documents Determine Common Area Ownership and Sharing in a Multi-Tower Project?

1. Obtain the building plan sanction for the entire project. The plan should show the common areas designated for all towers collectively and any areas designated for specific towers individually. Look for annotations on the plan that specify “common to all towers” or “Tower A only.” If the plan treats all common areas as project-level shared facilities without tower-specific allocation, this is the source of the ambiguity.
2. Obtain the RERA registration for each tower and compare the common area disclosures. Each tower’s RERA registration should specify the common areas and amenities available to buyers in that tower. Compare the Tower A RERA disclosure with the Tower B disclosure. Do they describe the same clubhouse as available to both towers? Do they describe different parking allocations? Any discrepancy between the two tower registrations is a red flag.
3. Obtain the project-level or tower-level bye-laws. These should specify the maintenance sharing formula for common areas shared between towers. Look for clauses that state how maintenance is apportioned, whether by flat count, by super built-up area or by some other metric. If the bye-laws are silent on inter-tower sharing, the dispute has no internal governance mechanism for resolution.
4. Confirm whether a single project-level association exists to manage inter-tower common areas or whether separate tower associations are expected to negotiate bilaterally. A single project-level association with clear authority over all common areas is the lowest-risk structure. Separate tower associations with no project body create the highest risk, because there is no binding decision-making authority.
5. If a sharing formula is not clearly documented in the RERA disclosure or the bye-laws, treat this as a dispute-in-waiting. Confirm with the association whether a formal agreement has been reached, whether it is documented and whether all towers have signed it. An informal verbal understanding between association office bearers is not sufficient. The agreement must be in writing, signed by authorised representatives of all affected associations and consistent with the RERA disclosures.

What Are the Governance Structures That Resolve or Create Common Area Disputes?

The single project-level association is the ideal structure. One registered body, typically under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act or the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, manages all common areas for all towers. Decisions are made by the general body of all flat owners across all towers, and those decisions are binding on every member. The risk is low because there is a clear governance mechanism. Before buying, confirm that the association is actually registered, that it holds regular meetings, that its bye-laws clearly cover inter-tower common area management and that it has a functional managing committee.

The separate tower associations with a project federation is a compromise structure. Each tower has its own association for tower-specific matters, and a project federation, sometimes called an apex body or federation of associations, manages shared common areas. The risk is medium because federation disputes are common. One tower’s association may refuse to accept the federation’s decision, or the federation itself may lack the legal authority to enforce its decisions on member associations. Before buying, confirm that the federation agreement is documented, signed by all tower associations and specifies the decision-making process, voting rights and enforcement mechanism.

The separate tower associations with no project body is the highest-risk structure. Each tower manages its own affairs, and there is no body with authority over shared amenities. Disputes over the clubhouse, parking or garden must be negotiated bilaterally between tower associations, with no binding arbitration mechanism. Before buying in this structure, demand to see a formal, signed sharing agreement between the tower associations. If no such agreement exists, understand that you are buying into a dispute-prone environment.

The developer retaining management rights is also high risk. In some projects, particularly those that are recently completed, the developer continues to manage common areas through a property management company and has not yet handed over management to a resident association. The risk is that the developer may delay handover indefinitely, or may hand over to separate tower associations without creating a project-level body. Before buying, confirm the handover date in the sale agreement, confirm the RERA obligation for common area handover and verify whether the developer has already formed an association or is still managing directly.

What Should a Buyer Specifically Verify About Common Areas Before Purchasing in a Multi-Tower Project?

A buyer in a multi-tower project should not assume that shared amenities are automatically available. The buyer should specifically verify, in writing, which common areas are available to the tower in which they are purchasing, what the maintenance contribution for those common areas is and how the sharing arrangement is documented. The buyer should also verify whether any existing dispute affects the tower they are considering and what the status of that dispute is.

If the seller or developer claims that all towers share all amenities equally, the buyer should request documentary proof. The proof should be the RERA registration, the building plan sanction or a formal association resolution, not a marketing brochure or verbal assurance. If the documentary proof does not match the claim, the buyer should treat this as a material discrepancy and seek legal advice before proceeding.

The buyer should also consider the practical implications of the governance structure. A single project-level association means one maintenance bill, one set of rules and one dispute resolution mechanism. Separate tower associations with a project federation mean multiple bills, multiple rule sets and the possibility of federation deadlock. Separate tower associations with no project body mean the buyer is dependent on bilateral negotiations between associations with no enforcement mechanism. The governance structure is as important as the physical amenities.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What causes common area disputes between towers in Bangalore projects?

Common area disputes between towers arise when the developer’s original documentation did not clearly specify which tower pays what share of maintenance for shared amenities or which tower has access to which facility. As projects mature and resident associations take over governance, towers that feel they are overpaying or under-benefiting demand a revision. The most common trigger is maintenance cost allocation, particularly where towers differ significantly in size or amenity access.

Q2. How does a common area dispute affect a flat buyer?

A common area dispute affects a flat buyer through restricted access to amenities the buyer paid for, increased maintenance costs if one tower refuses to share, legal costs that drain the association’s reserve fund, resale complications when future buyers discover the dispute and the uncertainty of a dispute that may require court resolution if the documentation is ambiguous.

Q3. What documents should I check to confirm common area allocation?

Check the building plan sanction for the entire project, the RERA registration for each tower, the project-level or tower-level bye-laws, and any formal sharing agreement between tower associations. Compare the RERA disclosures for different towers to identify discrepancies. Confirm whether a single project-level association or separate tower associations manage the shared areas.

Q4. What happens if the building plan does not clearly allocate common areas?

If the building plan does not clearly allocate common areas to specific towers, the dispute has no clear documentary resolution. The dispute may require court intervention, which is slow, expensive and uncertain. In this situation, a formal, signed sharing agreement between all affected tower associations is the only practical alternative to litigation.

Q5. What governance structure best prevents common area disputes between towers?

A single project-level association for all towers is the lowest-risk structure because one body manages all common areas and its decisions are binding on all towers. The highest-risk structure is separate tower associations with no project body, because there is no authority to resolve inter-tower disputes. A project federation between tower associations is a compromise with medium risk.

Q6. Can a tower restrict another tower’s access to a shared clubhouse?

A tower can attempt to restrict another tower’s access to a shared clubhouse, but whether this is legally valid depends on the documentation. If the RERA registration, building plan or a formal sharing agreement grants access to all towers, the restriction is a breach. If the documentation is silent, the restriction may be challenged as a violation of the original sale representation. In either case, legal intervention may be required to restore access.

Q7. What should the RERA disclosure say about common areas in my tower?

The RERA disclosure for your tower should specify the common areas and amenities available to buyers in that tower, including any amenities shared with other towers. It should describe the maintenance sharing formula, if any, and identify the governance body responsible for managing shared amenities. Compare your tower’s disclosure with other towers’ disclosures to identify any discrepancies.

Q8. Can I file a RERA complaint about a common area access dispute?

A RERA complaint may be available if the developer’s RERA disclosure promised specific common area access that is now being denied, or if the developer failed to create the governance structure specified in the disclosure. RERA’s jurisdiction is primarily over the developer’s obligations, not inter-resident disputes, so the complaint must frame the issue as a developer breach rather than an association conflict.

Q9. How does a common area dispute affect my flat’s resale value?

A common area dispute reduces resale value because prospective buyers’ lawyers flag the dispute during due diligence. Buyers either avoid the property entirely or negotiate a lower price to account for the risk. The discount persists until the dispute is resolved, which may take years if court intervention is required. The dispute becomes a permanent liability on the property’s marketability.

Q10. How does Legal Brigade assess common area disputes in multi-tower projects?

Legal Brigade assesses common area disputes by reviewing the building plan sanction, RERA registrations for all towers, association bye-laws and any existing sharing agreements. We identify documentation gaps, compare disclosures across towers, evaluate the governance structure and advise buyers on the specific risks of the project they are considering. Our verification includes direct inquiry with the association to confirm the current dispute status and any pending litigation.

Buying a flat in a multi-tower Bangalore project and want to confirm the common area sharing is clearly documented?

Vague sharing arrangements are the most common source of inter-tower disputes. Before you sign, verify the documents that determine who pays for what and who has access to which amenity.

Request Common Area Governance Check — legalbrigade.co.in/contact/

WhatsApp — wa.me/916360266840

Frequently Asked Questions