A housing society in Karnataka has triggered widespread debate after a tenant alleged that residents living in 1BHK and 1RK units were barred from using common amenities such as the gym and swimming pool despite paying regular maintenance charges.
The issue surfaced through a viral Reddit post in which the tenant claimed they had initially been promised full access to facilities before moving in but were later informed of a policy restricting smaller apartments from using them.
According to the tenant, the society now requires such residents to pay daily “guest fees” if they wish to access these facilities, while still collecting maintenance charges calculated on the size of the apartment.
The claims have sparked a heated discussion online, with some social media users suggesting that separate clubhouse memberships are common in gated communities, while others called the rule discriminatory and urged the tenant to review society bylaws or pursue legal action. As of now, the society’s management has not publicly responded to the allegations, and the claims remain based on the tenant’s account shared online.
Amenities Access Row Sparks Debate
The controversy came to light after the tenant shared their experience in a Reddit post titled “Big society does not allow 1 BHK residents to use the amenities but takes maintenance.” According to the resident, they moved into a 480-sq-ft 1RK unit when the housing society was still being formed and chose the property partly because of access to facilities such as a gym and swimming pool.
The tenant said they were paying a relatively high rent for the small apartment precisely because the society offered these amenities. However, they later learnt through the flat owner that some residents had raised objections to people living in smaller units using shared facilities.
The tenant wrote that they had initially been told the owner might buy a lifetime membership for the amenities to ensure continued access for tenants, but the situation eventually changed. “I never thought the society would actually bar us from using the amenities now,” the resident wrote, adding that even a one-time payment option was no longer allowed.
Instead, residents from smaller flats were reportedly asked to pay a guest fee each time they wanted to use the gym or pool. “The worst part is they are taking maintenance from us,” the tenant added, questioning whether the rule amounted to discrimination.
The tenant also noted that maintenance fees in the society are calculated based on the size of the apartment, meaning that even smaller units continue to contribute financially toward the upkeep of common facilities. This has further fuelled the frustration among affected residents, as they feel they are paying for services they cannot access.
According to the post, the society has recently introduced access cards or other mechanisms to enforce the restriction, preventing residents of certain units from entering the gym or pool area. The issue, which may have initially been an internal society dispute, has now gained wider attention online as more people discuss whether such policies are fair or legally valid.
Residents Debate Rules And Legality
The viral post quickly sparked a broader conversation about housing society regulations, tenant rights and the governance of gated communities in Indian cities. Some social media users argued that the situation might not necessarily be unusual, explaining that in several residential complexes, certain amenities such as swimming pools, clubhouses or gyms are operated under separate membership schemes.
Under such arrangements, residents may have to pay an additional fee beyond monthly maintenance to access these facilities, and membership may sometimes be restricted to apartment owners rather than tenants. According to one commenter, such policies are often introduced to manage overcrowding in limited-capacity amenities and ensure availability for paying members.
However, others pointed out that the tenant’s case appears different because the society reportedly does not allow residents to purchase separate access to amenities either. The tenant clarified in the discussion that although the society had earlier proposed offering paid access, the idea was never finalised. Another point of debate centred on whether smaller apartments were originally sold at lower prices without amenity rights.
Some users suggested that developers sometimes market studio apartments or smaller units with fewer privileges, assuming buyers prioritise affordability over access to facilities. Yet the tenant disputed this explanation, claiming the smaller unit was originally part of a larger “2+1” configuration purchased by the owner and later rented out separately.
Several commenters encouraged the tenant to review the property’s sale deed, builder agreement and society bylaws to determine whether such restrictions were legally enforceable. Others suggested approaching the registrar of cooperative societies or local authorities if the rules appeared discriminatory.
“It’s illegal unless there’s some clause in your flat agreement,” one user wrote, advising the tenant to examine official documents and raise the issue with regulatory bodies if necessary. The episode has therefore opened up a broader discussion about transparency in housing societies and the rights of tenants who contribute to maintenance but may not have a direct voice in decision-making.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Housing societies are meant to foster a sense of shared living where residents collectively contribute to the upkeep and well-being of their community. When rules governing access to common amenities appear unclear or unequal, they risk creating divisions rather than strengthening neighbourhood bonds.
The debate triggered by this case reflects a larger urban challenge: as cities grow denser and apartment sizes vary widely, housing societies must ensure that their policies remain transparent, fair and inclusive for both owners and tenants. If residents are contributing to maintenance costs, questions about equitable access to shared spaces are bound to arise and deserve thoughtful dialogue rather than abrupt restrictions.
At the same time, management committees should communicate rules clearly and ensure that residents understand them before moving in, preventing misunderstandings that can escalate into public disputes.
(Disclaimer: This story is based on user-generated content circulating on social media. The Logical Indian has not independently verified the claims mentioned.)
Also read: US Republicans Propose a Three-Year Pause on H-1B Visas, Seek a Major Overhaul
