Almost every housing society eventually has this debate. Should maintenance be billed equally across all flats, or should it scale with the size of each unit? It usually comes up when a new society is setting its billing policy for the first time, or when an existing society has residents pushing back on a method that no longer feels fair as the community has grown or changed.

There is no universally correct answer. Both methods are used widely, both are legally valid in most jurisdictions provided they are properly approved, and both come with tradeoffs that matter more or less depending on the specific society. This article compares the two directly, so committees can make a decision based on their community’s actual situation rather than defaulting to whatever the last committee happened to choose.

Quick comparison

	Equal billing	Square foot billing
How it works	Every flat pays the same fixed amount	Charge scales with each flat’s built up area
Best suited for	Societies with uniform or near uniform flat sizes	Societies with significant variation in unit sizes
Perceived fairness	Can feel unfair when unit sizes vary widely	Generally seen as more proportionate to space used
Ease of administration	Very simple, minimal data required	Requires accurate, verified area records
Common disputes	Smaller flats feeling they subsidise larger ones	Disagreements over accuracy of recorded area
Typical societies using it	Smaller, uniform layout communities, older societies with simple structures	Larger developments, mixed unit societies, newer construction

How does equal billing work?

Equal billing, sometimes called flat rate billing, charges every unit in the society the same maintenance amount regardless of size, layout, or floor. The society’s total approved budget is simply divided by the number of flats, and every resident pays that same figure each cycle.

The core logic behind equal billing is that many of the services maintenance covers, such as security, common area cleaning, and management overhead, benefit every household roughly equally, regardless of how large their individual unit is. A security guard protects the entire building, not just the larger flats within it, and the argument for equal billing rests heavily on this idea.

Strengths of equal billing

It is by far the simplest method to administer, since there is no need to maintain, verify, or periodically update area records for every unit. This also makes it easier to explain to residents, since the logic, everyone pays the same, requires no additional calculation to justify.

It tends to work well in societies where flat sizes do not vary significantly, since in that case the practical difference between equal billing and area based billing is small anyway, and the simplicity outweighs the marginal fairness gain of a more complex method.

Weaknesses of equal billing

The main criticism of equal billing surfaces in societies with a wide range of unit sizes. A resident in a 600 square foot flat paying the exact same amount as a neighbour in a 2,000 square foot flat often feels, reasonably, that they are subsidising a larger household’s share of common costs.

This becomes a bigger issue as societies age and undergo changes, such as flat mergers or subdivisions, or when new phases with different unit sizes are added to an existing development. What started as a fair method for a uniform society can become a persistent source of resident dissatisfaction if the community’s composition changes and the billing method does not.

How does square foot billing work?

Square foot billing calculates maintenance based on each flat’s carpet or built up area, so a larger unit pays proportionally more than a smaller one. The society’s total budget is divided by the combined area across all flats to arrive at a rate per square foot, which is then applied individually to each unit.

The reasoning behind this method is that larger flats generally place more demand on shared infrastructure and services, whether that is water usage, structural load, or simply a larger footprint within the building, and their maintenance contribution should reflect that.

Strengths of square foot billing

It is generally viewed as more equitable in societies with meaningful variation in unit sizes, since the cost each resident bears is tied to a measurable, objective factor rather than a flat assumption of equal usage. This tends to reduce the specific type of dispute where smaller unit owners feel they are overpaying relative to their space.

It also scales more naturally as a society grows or adds phases with different unit configurations, since the method does not need to be reconsidered each time new unit types are introduced, unlike equal billing, which can become harder to justify as variation increases.

Weaknesses of square foot billing

The biggest practical challenge with this method is data accuracy. It depends entirely on having correct, verified area figures for every flat, and in many older societies, original builder records were never properly confirmed, leading to disputes over whether a resident is being charged based on accurate measurements.

It is also more administratively demanding, since any flat renovation, subdivision, or merger requires updating area records to keep billing accurate, which is easy to overlook if the process is not built into the society’s regular administrative routine.

There is also a subtler critique of this method. It assumes that cost of common services scales linearly with flat area, which is not always true. A security guard’s salary, for instance, does not actually cost more to provide to a larger flat than a smaller one, even though square foot billing charges the larger flat more for that same shared service.

The fairness debate, in practice

Committees often frame this decision as a search for the objectively fair method, but in practice, both methods are fair under different definitions of fairness, and the right choice depends on which definition the community values more.

Equal billing reflects the idea that shared services benefit everyone equally, so cost should be shared equally. Square foot billing reflects the idea that maintenance is partly a function of space occupied, so cost should scale with space. Neither framing is wrong. The disagreement in most societies is not actually about which method is more fair in the abstract, but about which framing feels more intuitively right to the specific residents involved, which is often shaped by how much variation exists in unit sizes within that community.

This is why the most practical approach for most committees is not to search for a universally correct answer, but to look at their own society’s specific composition and decide which method better reflects the reality of who is using what.

Which method fits which society

As a general guide, equal billing tends to work best in societies where flat sizes are largely similar, where administrative simplicity is a priority, and where residents have historically accepted this method without significant pushback.

Square foot billing tends to work better in societies with a wide range of unit sizes, in larger developments with multiple building phases or unit types, and in communities where residents have raised fairness concerns about equal billing in the past.

Many societies also land on a middle ground, using a hybrid model that applies a fixed equal charge for services considered universally shared, such as security, combined with a variable, area based component for services more reasonably tied to unit size, such as general upkeep and amenities. This approach often resolves the fairness debate without requiring the administrative overhead of billing everything by area.

Legal and bylaw considerations

Whichever method a society chooses, it needs to be formally documented and approved through a general body resolution rather than decided informally by the managing committee. Most cooperative society and apartment ownership regulations require resident approval for the billing method itself, not just the total amount being collected.

Switching from one method to another, particularly moving from equal billing to square foot billing, is a significant change that affects individual resident payments differently, sometimes substantially. This should go through a proper resolution process with clear communication well before implementation, rather than being introduced as a routine budget update, since residents are far more likely to accept a change in method when they understand the reasoning and had a chance to weigh in.

How to transition between methods?

If a society decides to move from equal billing to square foot billing, or the reverse, a few steps tend to make the transition smoother.

Verifying area records accurately before the switch is essential if moving to square foot billing, since errors carried over from unverified builder data will simply become embedded in the new system and create disputes down the line. Communicating the change clearly, including a comparison of what individual residents will pay under the old and new methods, helps residents understand the actual impact rather than reacting to an abstract policy change.

Considering a phased transition, where the new method is introduced gradually or alongside a grace period, can also reduce pushback, particularly for residents who will see a meaningful increase under the new method. And documenting the resolution and approval process properly protects the committee if the change is questioned later, whether by a resident or during an audit.

Common mistakes when choosing a billing method

A few mistakes show up repeatedly across societies navigating this decision.

Choosing a method without resident input, then facing pushback after the fact rather than building consensus before implementation. Switching methods without updating and verifying the underlying data, particularly area records, which simply moves the source of disputes rather than resolving it. Failing to formally document the approved method, which becomes a real problem if the calculation is ever challenged. And treating the decision as permanent rather than periodically revisiting it as the society’s composition changes, since a method that made sense for a society ten years ago may not reflect its current mix of unit types today.

Making whichever method you choose easier to manage

Regardless of which method a society lands on, consistent and accurate application matters more than the choice itself. This is where manual calculation tends to introduce the most risk, whether it is an outdated area record slipping through unnoticed or a fixed rate not being applied uniformly across every flat.

A society management platform that handles this calculation logic systematically removes much of this risk, applying the chosen method consistently every billing cycle and keeping area records or flat details up to date in one place rather than scattered across old documents. Mygate supports this as part of a broader society management ERP, where billing configuration, whether equal, square foot, or hybrid, connects directly to accounting, collections, and resident communication. For a committee deciding between these methods, this means the harder part, choosing and getting resident approval for the method, is the real decision, while consistent application of whatever is chosen becomes largely automated rather than an ongoing administrative burden.

FAQs

Conclusion

The choice between square foot and equal billing is less about finding a universally correct method and more about matching the billing logic to the actual composition and expectations of a specific community. Equal billing offers simplicity and works well where flat sizes are uniform. Square foot billing offers proportionality and works better where unit sizes vary significantly. Many societies find that a hybrid approach captures the strengths of both.

Whichever method a committee chooses, the decision holds up best when it is transparent, properly approved by residents, and applied consistently every billing cycle, since most disputes in this area come not from the method itself, but from inconsistency or unclear communication around it.