Builders can not sell stilt parking areas – Supreme Court

In a recent case of an argument of a real estate development company that they are entitled to sell garages or stilt parking areas as separate flats to owners who intend to use it as parking facilities, a bench of Justices A K Patnaik and R M Lodha of Supreme Court, ruled that builders or promoters cannot sell parking areas as independent units or flats as these areas are to be extended as “common areas and facilities” for the owners.

The court passed the judgment while dismissing the appeal of the promoter, Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt Ltd, who challenged the Bombay high court’s ruling that under the MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act) a builder cannot sell parking slots in the stilt area as independent flats or garages. The apex court accepted the argument of the flat owners of Panchali Co-operative Society in Dahisar (E) that even if they had entered into any prior agreement or contract with the builder that they would not lay any claim on the parking areas, the same would not have any legal sanctity.

the court also disclaimed the appeal of the promoter that by treating these parking spaces as common areas, every flat purchaser in any case will have to bear proportionate cost for the same even if he may not be interested in such parking space at all.

Justice Lodha wrote in the judgment that the promoter has no right to sell any portion of such building which is not a ‘flat’ within the meaning of Section 2(A-1) and the entire land and building has to be conveyed to the organization. The only right that remains with the promoter is to sell unsold flats. Thus, it is clear that the promoter has no right to sell stilt parking spaces as these are neither flats nor apartments or attachments to a flat.

It is necessary for a promoter to fully disclose the common areas and facilities. Stilt parking spaces are usually not described as the part of the common areas. The same as such does not appear in the advertisement and agreement with the flat purchaser.

So far the said promoter is not put to any prejudice financially by treating open parking space/stilt parking space as part of common areas since he is entitled to charge a price for the common areas and facilities from each flat purchaser in proportion to the carpet area of the flat,” the apex court said.





Similar Articles

67 thoughts on “Builders can not sell stilt parking areas – Supreme Court

  1. I want to buy ground flat with garden. Whether I should pay for garden area at what rate? To pay as per the rate of Sq feet I am paying for flat or lesser.. Do I have to pay for garden development cost? If so, than at what rate I have to pay as garden development cost?

  2. No specific comments but a question is that the Stilt for car parking has been provided by the builder. The land was allotted to the society by CIDCO Ltd. and society entered into development agreement and the builder handed over the possession fo flats and stilts to the purchasers. Cidco has entered only Agreement to Lease. NO LEASE AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED BY CIDCO LTD. The owners of the stilt wanted to make change of use of stilt into and for commercial use. Neibhouring small tenements built by CIDCO for residential purpose is now being used for commercial purpose. Can the change of use of stilt be permitted what steps has to be taken for getting the change of use.

  3. It is ridiculous and at the same time tragic to see how frightened we
    Indians are and despite having an education, how ignorant we remain and how much we
    want to be spoon fed information.

    Ladies and Gentlemen..This site is giving us information. ( I own a flat with
    parking space in Kolkata). If you expect the site owner/s to give you advice too,
    help you against illegal construction, give you information about where it is
    applicable, etc.etc., surely it is asking too much of them

    They are giving us the gun. We cannot ask them to shoot it for us too. I will
    suggest that those interested print out a few copies of the verdict,{ perhaps Delhi residents can upload SC full verdict too, which others can download if the site owner
    permits}. All SC verdicts are applicable throughout the Indian Republic unless
    mentioned otherwise in the document (the verdict paper). Whatever problems
    different people are facing, the best thing to do will be to request legal
    advise by approaching a lawyer, armed with a verdict copy. I do not think that
    the date of verdict will matter. The SC has not made a law. It has only clarified an already an existing law. But these are my opinions only dependant on guesswork. We should
    take the help of professionals

    Perhaps, flatowners in different cities can form an association to discourage all
    and sundry from considering us easy to fool, as we remain busy. Unless we get
    together, situations like these are bound to make fools of us, one day or
    the other.
    Finally, may I clarify that, perhaps some of you do not know but putting/typing in CAPS ON means ” shouting”. Generally, when people see a message in CAPS, it appears to
    people as shouting and feel insulted. All caps are not very easy tp read too

    Arindom Borah
    111, Raipur Road, Kolkata-700047
    arindom.borah@gmail.com

  4. Dist. Consumer Forum-VI, New Delhi on the basis of Supreme Court of India judgment has ordered Gardenia Shelters Pvt Ltd, Noida in CC:1129/13 to refund the car parking amount of Rs.2 lakhs w.e.f. 27-10-2009 i.e. the date of collection until the date of payment @ 9% interest plus Rs.35,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses to the complainant–ABV Vijayalakshmi, Gardenia ‘Grace’,Sec.61, Noida.
    However, Gardenia Shelters Pvt Ltd arrogated itself and had the audacity to challenge the Apex Court decision in Delhi State Consumer Complaints Redressal Commission.
    It is atrocious that Delhi State Commission not only admitted the Appeal but also persuaded the Respondent viz; ABV Vijayalakshmi to forego one lakh and accept Rs.2,50,000/- that too in cash (against RBI rules) offered by the Advocate of the Realtor on 13-5-2015. However, the Advocate made a volte-face / U-turn and informed the Commission that the Realtor refused to refund even a single paisa. Therefore, the President of the State Commission adjourned the case to 31-7-2015 despite pleas to give an early date in view of the failing health of the Senior Citizen (70 years) who is a Party-in-Person with insensitivity and apathy for an ailing Sr. Citizen. How far the State Commission’s act is justified in allowing an Appeal against the Order of the highest court of the land?

  5. Dist.Consumer Forum-VI, New Delhi relied on Supreme Court judgment and ordered Gardenia Shelters Pvt Ltd, Noida to refund the car parking amount of Rs.200000 with 9% interest to Mrs ABV Vijayalakshmi (CC No.1129/13) and Rs.35,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and legal expenses.
    However, the Realtor appealed in Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission stating Dist. Forum misread and wrongly interpreted Supreme Court Order.
    It is atrocious that State Commission allowed the Appeal against the ruling of the highest court of the land on 13-5-2015. How far the action taken by the State Commission is justified?

Leave a Reply

Top