Real estate and urban living: when residents refuse fees and utilities are cut — the Greater Noida condominium case

In mid-January 2026 a high-profile dispute in Greater Noida — between the developer of a large condominium complex and its residents — escalated into a confrontation that left thousands temporarily without essential services. The conflict revolves around a contested hike in maintenance or upkeep charges, mass refusals to pay, and the developer’s decision to suspend or curtail services such as electricity and water. That standoff illuminates a growing fault line in many Indian and global cities: who ultimately pays for the shared infrastructure of dense urban living, and what tactics are legally and ethically acceptable when collections break down.

This explainer unpacks the Greater Noida episode as a case study in urban governance and resident movements. It covers the background of the dispute, the proximate causes, the practical and human impacts, legal and governance themes, and plausible futures.

What happened — the facts in brief

Residents of Eros Sampoornam, a multi-tower condominium complex in Greater Noida West, refused to accept an increase in monthly upkeep or maintenance charges proposed by the developer and the association. In response, residents say the developer arranged or permitted cuts to essential services — notably power for the complex’s centralized systems and water pumping — and withdrew allied services such as housekeeping and security for periods, citing unpaid dues and operational strain. The outage affected lifts, water supply and other central services, disrupting everyday life and prompting formal complaints and meetings with local authorities. The developer and resident bodies traded accusations: residents called the action coercive and dangerous to vulnerable neighbours; the developer said long-standing unpaid bills and a strained budget left it little choice.

Background: the economics and governance of apartment living

Modern apartment complexes centralize many functions — power distribution for common areas, water pumping and storage, security, elevators, parks and clubhouses. These services are typically paid for through monthly maintenance or upkeep fees collected from owners. Over time, a complex’s operating budget must keep up with inflation, rising wages for staff, fuel for backup diesel generators, electricity tariffs, taxes and any new regulatory burdens. Where residents form a legally registered association (Apartment Owners’ Association, or AOA), that body usually sets and collects charges under bylaws and sometimes with developer involvement until formal handover.

However, several structural pressures complicate this simple model:

• Developers may continue to wield control over service contracts, meters and accounts for years after first possession, often citing pending handovers or unpaid common area maintenance.
• State and national tax rules have sometimes changed how maintenance and bundled services are treated for GST purposes, adding uncertainty about whether collections should include tax or how to account for bulk electricity supplies.
• Large complexes that rely on centralized distribution bear the operational risk for the whole community: if the entity that pays the bulk electricity bill or fuel for generators cannot fund it, services can be interrupted for all residents.

These pressures are not unique to Greater Noida; they surface in cities where ownership has outpaced the maturity of resident governance and where developers, residents and local authorities are still negotiating roles.

Causes: why did residents refuse to pay?

The Greater Noida confrontation was driven by a mix of concrete grievances and politics of trust:

1. Disputed fee increases and transparency concerns. Residents objected to a proposed hike in maintenance without what they considered adequate explanation or visible improvements in services. In many complexes, owners demand detailed accounts, line-item budgets and receipts for major contracts; when these are missing or delayed, trust erodes.

2. Historical unresolved complaints. In some Greater Noida communities, residents have a history of complaining about poor upkeep of parks, elevators, water infrastructure and safety — issues that heighten suspicion when fees rise. Repeated unaddressed complaints can harden into organized non-payment as a tactic to force action.

3. Financial strain and non-payment cascade. When a significant minority (or majority) of owners delay payments — for reasons ranging from individual financial hardship to principled protest — the cashflow available to pay staff, purchase diesel for generators, or settle power bills falls. That shortfall can prompt developers or managing committees to threaten or actually cut services to compel payment.

4. Developer-resident power imbalance. Developers often control key meters and systems in the early years of occupation. Some residents feel that power imbalances are exploited to pressure them into compliance. The result is a tense mix of legal, social and operational conflict.

Immediate impacts on people

The human consequences of centralized cuts are immediate and often severe:

• Vulnerable residents are disproportionately affected. Elderly residents, those with medical needs, and people who rely on elevators or pumped water suffer most when electrical and water services are suspended. Lifts stop, water tanks cannot be refilled, and backup systems (diesel generators) may not be sufficient for a whole complex. Reports from the scene cited elderly and medically dependent residents who were stranded or could not access essential support during outages.

• Daily routines and safety. Extended outages halt lifts (creating hazards in high towers), cut security access systems, darken common areas, and hamper firefighting readiness if pumps are non-functional. Households face disrupted cooking, washing and sanitation services.

• Work and schooling disruptions. For many urban households, home is also workspace; power and internet interruptions affect livelihoods and schooling, multiplying the economic cost.

• Tension and sometimes violence. Confrontations between residents and maintenance or security staff have occurred in the past in the region when disputes over services escalated, adding a public-order dimension as emotions run high. One past incident in Greater Noida underscored how quickly complaints about power can spiral.

Legal, regulatory and ethical issues

The episode raises several intersecting legal and policy questions:

• Legality of cutting essential services. Local authorities and regulatory instruments generally frown upon depriving people of basic utilities as a coercive debt-collection tactic. Courts in India have repeatedly emphasized the obligation to maintain common facilities and the illegality of arbitrary deprivation; still, enforcement depends on clear statutes and active regulators.

• Who is responsible for collective goods? The law assigns duties to AOAs once society governance is established. Where developers retain control, the distribution of responsibility becomes contested. Case law and consumer forums have recognized residents’ right to services and the association’s power to collect dues, but outcomes vary.

• Tax and accounting clarity. Disputes about whether maintenance/centralized electricity should attract GST or other taxes can produce large retrospective liabilities for associations, creating budgets that suddenly become unaffordable. Ambiguity pushes stakeholders into defensive positions — either refusing to pay until litigation clarifies liability, or pressing to recover past shortfalls.

• Ethics of leverage. Even if non-payment is unlawful, cutting services as retaliation raises ethical alarms: it uses collective punishment against individuals who may themselves be victims of governance failures. Conversely, residents who withhold fees while consuming services raise free-rider fairness issues. The circularity requires negotiated, procedural solutions.

What government and regulators did — and could do

In the Greater Noida instance local authorities intervened to mediate, and direction was reportedly issued to avoid cutting essential services while the dispute was sorted out. This kind of temporary administrative response is typical: seek an immediate halt to actions that endanger residents, then convene developer, AOA and authority representatives.

Longer term policy steps that can prevent such standoffs include:

• Clear rules on handover timelines and escrow accounts for common area operations during transition from developer control to resident associations.
• Mandatory annual audited accounts and transparent billing platforms for AOAs and developer-run management firms.
• Dispute-resolution cells at municipal or state levels that can quickly arbitrate fee increases and suspected mismanagement.
• Guidance or subsidies for critical backup infrastructure (e.g., standards for redundancy in water and power for high-rise living).

Possible futures and lessons

The Greater Noida case will likely proceed along several overlapping tracks: local mediation to restore services and negotiate arrears; possible legal action by either side; and a broader public conversation about governance models for large complexes.

There are several likely lessons and policy tendencies:

1. Better transparency is inevitable. Residents will continue to demand clear accounts; technology (shared accounting dashboards, third-party audits) can lower the frictions that spark collective refusals.

2. Regulatory tightening. As high-density apartment living becomes the dominant urban form, states and municipal authorities will face pressure to codify roles, expedite handovers, and prevent the weaponization of utilities.

3. Financial innovations. Escrowed maintenance funds, mandatory sinking funds, and insurance for critical services could reduce the systemic risk created by payment shortfalls.

4. A shift in dispute culture. Repeated crises push communities to professionalize associations and reduce ad-hoc protest tactics; conversely, unresolved incidents can catalyze more organized resident movements and political attention.

5. Reputational cost for developers. High-profile disputes attract negative publicity and may affect future sales unless developers modify practices, improve handovers and show better willingness to negotiate.

Bottom line

The Greater Noida condominium dispute is more than a local argument about a fee increase. It exposes structural challenges in urban governance — how shared services are funded and governed, how trust is built (or eroded) between developers and residents, and how public authorities intervene when private provisioning fails. Residents’ refusals to pay are often a symptom of deeper transparency and service problems; service cuts as coercion are an ethically fraught and sometimes unlawful response that disproportionately harms the most vulnerable. The constructive path forward is procedural: clearer rules for finances and handovers, mandatory transparency, effective dispute resolution, and regulatory guardrails that prevent collective punishment while holding non-payers to account fairly.

Greater Noida’s episode is a cautionary tale and a policy opportunity. Cities that embrace clearer governance frameworks for apartment living will reduce the chances that non-payment and service cuts become recurring flashpoints in the daily lives of millions who now call high-rise developments home.

---

Reporting note: This article synthesizes contemporaneous reporting from local outlets and national press on the Greater Noida condominium dispute, and places the episode in the wider context of apartment governance and urban policy. Sources used include reporting that documented the service cuts, the developer’s and residents’ statements, and past incidents in the region.