The main legal point established in the judgment is that a properly registered apartment owners' association, consisting of a majority of apartment owners, has the right to carry out maintenance and upkeeping of the property under the Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act,1994.

M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.

This intra-court appeal challenges the order of the learned single Judge of this Court made in O.A.No.39 of 2004 in C.S.No.32 of 2004.

2. TheCourt heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and also for the respondents.

3. It was a suit filed by the appellant Association viz., Rayala Tower Owners Association seeking the relief of declaration and consequential injunction. Pending the suit, an application was filed seeking injunction restraining the respondent in any manner interfering with the applicant/plaintiffs right to carry out the maintenance and up keeping of the property described in schedule B of the plaint and from levying and collecting any charges therefor, pending disposal of the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff/applicant/appellant in short is thus:

The Rayala Tower Nos. 2 and 3 have got various common areas and utilities; that the Association which came to be formed in the year 2000, got registered with the view to protect and promote the interest of the occupants in the respective apartments in Tower Nos.2 and 3 at Rayala Towers; that the Association came into existence on 17. 2001, pursuant to which, all the members of the Association were communicated that the Association would be taking care of the maintenance of their apartments since the respondents were only interest in collecting the maintenance charges and not interested in doing their maintenance work; that from the year 2001, the plaintiff /appellant has been doing the same; that while the matter stood thus, on instigation of one of the members, a dispute arose with the respondents and consequently, a hostile attitude was taken by the respondents towards the applicant association; that in the year 2003, when the respondent began to dig up a portion in the common area near the Electricity Sub-station from where the electricity is supplied to various apartments in the towers, the same was questioned; that following the same, a suit came to be filed in C.S.No.497 of 2003 by the respondent and the same is also pending; that in the said suit, some interim orders were passed; that in the meantime, there was interference by the respondents in the applicant association carrying on the maintenance and up keeping of the property; that under such circumstances, there arose a necessity for filing a suit for the above relief of declaration and consequential injunction and the necessity arose for seeking interim order and the application was brought forth.

5. The application was resisted by the first defendant/respondent on the grounds that the said Association was not actually registered which is compulsory as contemplated under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act,1994. Thus, it has no locus standi to file a suit. Insofar as the property was concerned, there are three towers. One of the Towers was exclusively with the first defendant/respondent. So far as Tower Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, there are ground and nine floors in each towers and the association was not the one constituted by all the apartment owners. Numbers of persons who are occupying the apartments have actually not joined the association. Out of them, seven occupants are directly with the first defendant and thus, the maintenance of those apartments and up-keeping are with the first defendant continuously. There are 1,60,000 sq.ft unused and unsold portions which were with the first defendant/respondent and there are common areas which is available for car parking. The compound wall is also a common one. There is a common electric transformer near Tower No.1 whereby the electric energy is supplied to all the apartments and common areas in all the three towers and the electricity consumption charges for the common areas are collected and paid by the first defendant continuously. It cannot be said to be that all the apartment owners are members of the Association. So long as it is not so, the association could not either maintain the suit or g