Skip to main content

Builders can't sell flat's parking space separately: Consumer Forum


Mumbai: In a significant order, a consumer forum has ruled that a parking space that comes with a flat cannot be sold by the builder to a party that has not purchased the flat. The forum on Monday, directed Royal Palms (India) Pvt Ltd to pay a Juhu-based couple Rs 5 lakh as compensation for not handing over a parking space along with the flat the couple had purchased in a Goregaon complex in 2006. "Handing over possession of the parking space along with the flat is binding on the developer," said the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

In the judgment, the forum pointed out to Section 36 of the Development Control Regulations, which states that for a four-wheeler the minimum size of a parking space should be 2.5m-by-5.5m. The regulations also have a chart that specifies the parking spaces to be allotted to flats according to their size and number. "This proves that a parking space was a part of the flat and not a separate subject from the flat," the forum said. The forum added that just by handing over possession of the flat a developer cannot say an agreement has been completed.

It added that the parking space reserved for flat owners also can't be sold by the builder to anyone else. "A developer cannot sell anything other than unsold flats in a building," the forum observed.

According to the couple, Anita Gupta and Anand Gupta, they had purchased a 1,473-sq-ft flat in the developer's project at Aarey Milk Colony in 2006. The Guptas paid Rs 57.07 lakh on May 30, 2006 for the flat, which was situated on the sixth floor of the building. The developer was to hand over possession of the flat before March 31, 2007. After the agreement was signed, the Guptas paid the full amount to the developer. On July 5, 2007, the developer asked the family to take possession of the flat to complete the furnishings and other minor work, which the Guptas did.

In the complaint filed before the consumer forum on November 21, 2008, the Guptas alleged that the developer did not hand over a stilt parking space along with the flat. They also alleged that all the parking spots were sold to others. They added that they had paid around Rs 2 lakh for the space along with the flat amount, which the builder had accepted.

The developer contested the charges and alleged that the Guptas had filed a false complaint as they still had to pay some dues. The forum, however, observed that the amount due had no relation to the stilt parking. The forum observed that, in the reply to the complaint, the builder did not mention whether it had handed over the parking space to the Guptas. The forum further pointed out that the builder had only evasively stated that it had not violated any terms and conditions of the agreement. The forum said it was obvious that the Guptas were not given the parking space. The forum held the developer guilty of deficiency in service.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-04/mumbai/38277538_1_consumer-forum-parking-space-developer

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more