WILL THE SC JUDGEMENT CREATE A JAM, OVER PARKING?
In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that any money paid to a developer for allotment of open/stilt parking slot, does not legally create a right for the owner. Kamlesh Pandya takes a look at the impact of this ruling
In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that any money paid to a developer for allotment of open/stilt parking slot, does not legally create a right for the owner. Kamlesh Pandya takes a look at the impact of this ruling
Arecent Supreme Court judgement, on a petition filed by the residents of a Mumbai suburban housing society against the developer, states that builders cannot sell stilt or open parking areas. “The facts of the case may not apply to each and every such dispute,” says advocate Vinod Sampat. “The apex court’s judgement dismissed the appeal of developer Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt Ltd, which challenged the Bombay High Court’s ruling that under the MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act), a builder cannot sell parking slots in the stilt area as independent units,” explains Sampat.
The SC, while accepting the argument of the flat owners of Panchali Cooperative Housing Society, Anand Nagar, Dahisar east, held 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.
Housing activist Sreedhar Sharma says he welcomes the judgement, which effectively impacts three separate segments: (a) those who have bought parking slots from builders, (b) the cooperative housing society, which now has to deal with allotment of all the stilt and open parking slots and (c) owners who have cars, but have not paid the builder for the parking slots. “Those who have bought such parking slots have no proof of payment or legal documentation and even when there is something in writing, it is neither stamped nor registered. Hence, the buyers’ claim of ownership of the car slot is legally not tenable and a mere allotment letter has no value as evidence in a court of law. However, if you ask someone who has paid a large sum for the parking slot to give it away, you will see major issues,” he predicts.
Sampat agrees that the implementation of the SC judgement will be a headache for housing society managing committees. “Parking slot owners will be unwilling to giving up the same. Other residents will now insist that all slots are part of the common area and should be redistributed among members. All this creates scope for plenty of legal action among members and also with the managing committee,” he feels.
Arun Saxena, president of the International Consumer Rights Protection Council says that home owners who have already paid the builder for the parking slot, can ask for refund through the Consumer Protection Act. “If such home owners, who have bought parking spaces from the developer, wish to claim refund of such money, they will have to file case against the builder to seek refund, with interest,” he elaborates. Besides the consumer court, such consumers can also initiate legal action under the civil court and under the MRTP Act.