“Open-to-sky” areas or “stilted” (covered) portions of their flat complexes, usable as parking spaces, cannot be sold separately by flat builders/promoters/developers as “garage”, the Supreme Court has ruled.
These spaces are part of the “common areas” in flat complexes and not “saleable independently as a flat or along with a flat”, the court said in a judgment.
The verdict sets a precedent even as the apex court took note that builders/promoters/developers were “indulging in malpractices in the sale and transfer of flats and the flat purchasers were being exploited”.
The judgment delivered Tuesday by a bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik comes in the backdrop of interpreting the legislative intent behind enacting the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1969.
The court made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Mumbai promoter Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction against a co-operative housing society to whom they had sold a few properties in Anand Nagar, Dahisar (East) in the city. They accused society members of “encroaching” into 25 stilt parking spaces in the building.
The court said promoters will not be put to any financial prejudice by treating parking spaces as common areas since “he (promoter) is entitled to charge price for the common areas and facilities from each flat purchaser in proportion to the carpet area of the flat”.
“Can a promoter take a common passage/lobbies or say staircase or the RG area out of purview of ‘common areas and facilities’ by not prescribing or defining the same in the ‘common areas’?” asked the court and illustrated how the Maharashtra law mandates the promoter to describe the “common areas and facilities” in the advertisement as well as in the agreement later with the buyer.
“The promoter is required to indicate the price of the flat, including the proportionate price of the common areas and facilities. If the promoter does not disclose the common areas and facilities, he does so at his own peril,” the bench observed.
The court clarified that “stilt” or covered parking spaces were “common areas”, and would not cease to be so even if the promoter fails to describe them as common spaces.
I`m residing in an multi-storeyed apartment in chennai which has 6 floors occupied by 25 apartments. But the open car parking facility car occupy only 15 cars. We are facing a lot of problems with the neighbours in sharing open car park. Is there any law which has some regulations for open car parking which we could use...?? pls help me in this issue..
As per the builder Open car parking is a mandatory charge of INR 150,000 & is applicable to 812 apartments (extra charge of 12.18 Cr.) that have been booked. After reading this column i did reach out to the builder but there's been no revert rather subsiding the matter. Could you please share & suggest on urgent basis. http://umangrealtech.com/
please advise or share copy of supreme court judgement for payment of parking charges.
i have booked a flat in a group housing colony named spire woods, sec 103 gurgaon, by M/s An Buildwell Pvt Ltd. the aplication form mentions in the price list the charges for covered parking space(Basement/stilt) and not in the buider buyer agreemnt he has added charges fo reserved open car parking. 1. is he right in doing so? 2. having paid 20% and going to sign on the buider buyer agreemnt, what options do i have now. how can i fight for mmy rights. regards
We have purschased flat at Vihang valley phase I, thane ghodbunder road , at the time of booking builder didn't say anything about paying extra charges for parking, now at the time of possion he is asking 1.5L for open and 2.5lacs for Stilt parking .. and giving nothing in writing , we have to pay cash.. pl let us know what to do?
I have the same issue. After i had booked my flat, i had to shell out 2 lacs to acquire a Stilt parking in my building. Now, after the SC verdict its going to be confusion. Also, i only got a receipt of my parking space and nothing else. My questions are: 1) Is it going to be a problem if in future i decide to sell the parking ? 2)Can i register my parking space ?
What a garbage judgement. Because of rulings like this India is facing problems. If the parkings are not going to be bought/sold or bundled with apartments sold, how can one be assigned a parking spot inside a building. There will be total chaos. Price of parking is one of the parameters in the whole apartment deal. One shld be able to negotiate one or two parking spaces as one negotiates the amenities in their apartment. What.. tomorrow supreme court is going to rule on the price of the apartments as well and also regulate what amenities one can and should have. What courts should rule on is that builders should not connive with each other and set prices across the city. Other than that let the free market dictate the prices and one's ability to buy/sell and their needs.
in our society one of the member who stays in the ground player has encroached on the society premise and has started to threaten society members through outsiders,and our chairman is also in support to him and since i am a secretary i want to remove the encroachment so please guide me what i should do?
Just one letter to the Corporation and a few members wwith a little guts would do. Who is this moron who is bringing in outsiders. Boycot him from all social things no one talk to him even if he has some problem. Go together and break down the encroachment.When you attack individually its a case and when an entire society is together the case dosent hold good. In these days the more you hide from such morons they seem to grow bigger so strike first and strike hard so he has the fear of it.
We are A housing society 15 years old and registered. stilt parking was used by the society turn by turn to park cars. recently three members went to the builders office and purchased the parking space.now we are having problems/fights to park cars. please help and suggest.can we approach consumer court.?
Builder has collected Rs.2 lacs as mandatory covered parking charges on 27-9-09 by cheque (bank transfer to the builder's account) and the flat was due to be given possession by the end of 2010. However, the flat is yet to be handed over due to delay in construction. Whether I can claim refund of parking charges already paid by adjustment at the time of final payment as balance payment is yet to be made. If the builder refuses to entertain my request, whether the Supreme Court ruling given in 2010 supports my case in Consumer Court? Thanking you, email@example.com
IN OUR CASE, THE BUILDER AT THE INITIAL STAGE OF SIGNING THE AGREEMENT ITSELF, RS.2 LAKHS HAS BEEN COLLECTED AS COVERED PARKING CHARGES IN THE YEAR 2009. THE CONSTRUCTION AND HANDING OVER OF THE FLAT HAS BEEN DELAYED AND THE FLAT DUE TO BE HANDED OVER AT THE END OF 2010 HAS NOW BEEN EXTENDED INDEFINITELY. WHETHER THIS RS.2 LACS CAN BE ADJUSTED AT THE TIME OF FINAL PAYMENT IN THE LIGHT OF APEX COURT RULING NOW? IF THE BUILDER REFUSES TO ENTERTAIN OUR REQUEST, WHETHER WE CAN APPROACH CONSUMER COURT FOR JUSTICE? IF WE ENTER INTO THIS SORT OF LITIGATION, WHAT TYPE OF PROBLEMS ARE LIKELY TO BE ENCOUNTERED FROM THE BUILDER AS HE HAS HIGH POLITICAL CONNECTIONS?
In view of the Hon; Suprem COurt Judgment that the open closed stilt parking is the property of the society after the building OC is issued and Society is registered. In our Society charging stilt covered from top are apying 50/- Rs not as property tax but parking charges whereas outside parking open to sky are paying 250/- Rs per month as outside parking charges ewhich is open to sky and affected by sun / heat/ rain and falling shit of birds. The society should charge stilt parking owners more then open to sky parking in order to avoide confrontation with the members who will file writ petition to impose the judgment OR society should charge both Rs 50/- or Rs 250/- and should not differentiate amongst the members. The MC has to follow the Supreme Court Judgment to put the proposal t othe General body and can nto speak against the judgment because they have signed the bond and any loss to society they are liable for the consequences. Suggest
The ruling is confusing and not practical.The court has not considered that the bylaws prescribed provides for sale and purchase of parking place to a member.Relied upon this many have purchased parking place from the promoters and the transaction is stamped and registered also.The promoter would not return the amount as time bar.The judge shri. lodha himself owns a flat in a building with a stilt parking (nyaysagar CHS BKC )where the parking slots are bundled with a flat.Though it could not be ascertained that the flat of shri lodha is bundled with parking slot or otherwise in either of the case shri.lodha becomes interested person and should have refrained himself from giving the verdict and the issue should have been heard by a judge who does not own a flat built under MOFA/MAOA.If the ruling is made applicable than porche attached to a row house in a CHS can not be exclusively allotted to the row house owner as the porche is not garage as held by the court.ATMARAM
Most of the builders are Fraud and invest their own black money or underworld money or some politicians money to build complexes/buildings and sell them to the poor Indians for exorbitant rates on which ONLY the seller has the control. Why cant we have a regulator like TRAI for telecom, IRDA for Insurance, RBI for Banking? It is high time that the central government appoint a regulator for these builders so that these builders fall in line else they will keep on looting common man whether is is a metro city or a small town, these mafias will screw the country
Dear Sir, My self Santanu Deb from kolkata. I booked a flat in Kolkata & going to sign agreement with builder within Tuesday, where builder is charging Rs. 2 Lakh open car parking par flat. Here my question regarding above said judgment -%u201D The Supreme Court has that ruled builders/promoters cannot sell parking areas in the stilt area as independent units as the same is to be extended as %u201Ccommon areas and facilities%u201C for the owners%u201D %u2013 is applicable for West Bengal ? My Builder says this rule is applicable for Mumbai only ! Please reply? If so sir it can save another 2 lakh from our savings. Santanu Deb
the supreme court judgement is based on MOFA which is applicable in Maharashtra. there would be something on parallel lines to this in Bengal. the same needs to be checked. as per MOFA the builder cannot sell the stilt / open parking as the same does not come under the defination of a flat or guarage.
I purchased a flat in 2007 with stilt parking purchase from builder, before even the law for stilt parking was imposed. The builder mentioned that we still need to pay the Stilt parking, finally I ended up paying a huge amount of 2.5lac rs to the Builder for buying the stilt parking and also mentioning in stamp agreemented along with my flat. Also to highlight there are other customers in my flat who have not even paid a single penny for car parking and they are parking in the society premises at will saying the "builder has no rights to sell car parking." Now after society formation the society is asking for stilt parking charges and also mentions that you cannot sell Stilt parking. The Stilt parking needs to be handed over to the Society for FREE, leaving people like is fools and stranded. Queries:- 1) What about the ordinary people like me who have been cheated in the purchase of STILT parking? 2) What is the supreme court stand for us? 3) As a ordinary man, how can we get r
when i told builder about parking cannot be sold he said he is not selling parking but just alloting it. and charging for same,i told him i m 21st century indian i u cannot fool me like this, he straight way said,he is not interested in me.. if you want to fight against injustice you should marry a lawyer here,
The policy makers, our leaders, and many at the helm of affairs are lethargic as their bellies are full and need relaxation to get active again to find other means to fool the common people/public. Every now and then SC wakes up to the predicament of the common people and comes out with such rulings. How many genuine flat buyers who puts their hard earned money into the purchase know that how the builders are calculating the area of the premises they are selling? Many purchasers, even after having the knowledge, are vulnerable and get duped/deceived by the builders in terms of the builders' notion of carpet, built-up and super-built up areas. How many builders are honest, are following business ethics sincerely, and earning their profits honestly? How many of them are service-oriented? I believe, one can count them on fingertips. Fair and unfair percentages are added to the carpet area of the premises. Many of them are unreasonable and some of them are reasonable in this area.
this is my confusion that this judgement applicable all over India of not.if not then in UP & NOIDA it is applicable.
It seems to be a good movement by the SC. We will have to see how it goes further in terms of actual corrective action at the builder's end. Can anyone please help me understand the proof to be shown to the builders in case they charge for the parking space of any new project?
I would like to know how this judgment impact on old allotments of parking place charged by the builder. In one particular society some might have purchased while others might not have purchased. So what will be the over all impact?
who are you asking this question to, bro? Supreme Court has given a verdict and stopped. Didn't feel it necessary to explain the various implications of the same. So the entire matter will now depend on how you read it - builders will say it doesn't change anything about earlier allotments - buyers will say otherwise. Go to court again and fight it out - maybe the honorable court will be kind enough to explain.
builders get there rank just below politician and lawyers they will not give any thing for free.nor common man can do any thing,they will increase loading on flat.my building is under construction and only half parking space is available.the only way to get rid of this is to no one should take parking space in building and pay only for flat.
Just like the service tax issue, this ruling only brings in a lot of confusion.The builders will never make the parking free. So either they do not allot it at all and let the residents fight and take ownership OR they alott it and do not charge separately but just add the same price in your psf cost of the apartment. And if that happens then societies will become a quarrel ground over parking everyday. Imagine you bought a flat and is allotted a parking/garden and tomorrow your neighbour parks his/her car, cycle, scooter in that area saying its a common area. You can't do anything coz the ruling says so. the builder can't do nething coz the ruling says so. So you run upto the court and file an RTI to find out what the court actually meant when it gave such a ruling. I dont think any of the judges live in society flats :)
Hello friends, We all Mumbaikar welcomes this SC judgment. We should appreciate this judgment and congrats to people who had fought for parking slot and shown builder their place. Same case I would like to share is that Veer Mahal Co-Op Hsg. Soc. Builder (Mr. Deepak Ghosar) had build the building without OC. How ?? that he only knows and corrupted secretory. And funny thing is he is selling parking slot in lacs of rupees also he build two commercial offices in park slot and sold out their relatives. Outsource building corrupted secretory and managing committee is responsible. Main problem is builder is from Jain community and 60% of tenants are Jains. Anyway all societies are having different problems. If tenants unity is strong then results will come true. Congratulation to SC judgment winner. Neha J.
Does this apply only to housing societies or commercial / office complexes as well. I bought an office in a commercial complex, but as the builder was charging too much, I didn't 'buy' a parking slot. With the current order, can I ask the Managing Committee to allocate a parking slot within the office complex?
When a builder sold out a flat with garden space for a ground floor flat(A open space converted in to garden space and shown in the agreement to sale)and reserved it for exclusive use of a flat owner to whom the garden flat was sold.How this judgement of SC will apply here.Please comment on my query.
Dear friends, We all Mumbaikar welcomes this SC judgment. We appreciate and thankful to peoples who fought for wonderful judgment. In our society (Veer Mahal co-op Hsg soc. Lalbaug) Builder not even completed OC work and sold out parking slot also he has build two commercial rooms in paking slot. Ofcource our corupted secrectory and other committee membes also responsible for same. Our main problem is builder is from Jain community and 75% tenants of society are Jains. Any ways all societies having different problem. Many congratulation to winner. This is bing lession to builders and BMC officers. Neha J.