parking rights for the ground floor flat owner
5 years ago
Sir, we purchased a flat in a stilt+2 floor apartment. 1st & 2nd floor has 2 flats on each storey. the whole stilted portion in ground floor should be fully parking plot. instead, a flat has been constructed in the ground floor which occupies 50% of the total area. owners of 4 flats (1st&2nd floor) says that, since the ground floor flat owner occupied on his UDS, he have no rights in parking area. clarifications required regards the parking rights for the ground floor flat owner.
Rameshwar Dadhe
Responded 5 years ago
A.U should show me development map of the building. I will help you
Helpful
Helpful
Share
A.Dear Client,
Please go through the following:
Nahalchand Laloochand V. Panchali, The Most Misused Precedent By Litigants BY: DR. V.V.L.N. SASTRY25 FEB 2017 3:50 PM
In a 2010 judgment, in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [AIR 2010 SC 3607], a real estate company presented the argument that it is correct to sell stilt parking areas or garages as separate individual entities just like a flat, to those who do not own flats in the building and wish to use such entities as parking places. The Hon’ble Supreme Court judges- Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice R. M. Lodha however,rejected this argument while stating that such independent units or flats cannot be sold to outsiders by builders/promoters since these areas are to be for a price to the purchasers of flats and the builder/promoter can only charge as towards common areas and facilities from each flat owner in proportion to the carpet area of the flat. The judgement however, is being misconstrued by flat owners who have not purchased parking prior to the Supreme Court’s judgement of 2010. And they are in a bid to usurp the parking places purchased by co-flat owners who have paid huge amounts to the builders towards such places.Such flat owners who have not opted for purchasing parking places(hereinafter referred to as litigants)in turn, are creating problems for their co-flat owners by misinterpreting the judgement, which is to say, “even those who did not purchase parking area along with their flat are seeking a parking place by invoking this precedent.” This however, is unjust to the parking purchasers who have shelled out huge amounts to the builders to secure parking places. The argument from such litigants wanting to misuse this judgement is that, those who have paid heavy amounts towards the purchase of parking places, have done so at their own risk and have to forego their rights to such parking places. It is pertinent to note that such litigants are fully aware that they have not paid to the builder any amount towards purchase of parking place while negotiating the purchase of a flat with the builder. It would also be relevant to state here that builders have sold such parking places at very high rates to the purchasers of such places along with flats. The only defense for these litigants is the verdict on Nahalchand Laloochand v. Panchali by Supreme Court in the year 2010. This precedent is misused as the lower courts are not getting into the merits of this precedent, circumstances, premises, and case related obiterdicta. Hence, litigants are trying to invoke this precedent with retrospective effect, which in all likelihood, is poised to create multiple litigations and blur the exact position of the law.
The universal applicability of the Supreme Court judgement would come into question as the laws have been amended subsequently by the legislature in Maharashtra. The Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India (CREDAI), Pune branch, said that though the Supreme Court has made it categorically clear that “stilt parking/open parking” cannot be sold as it does not fall under the definition of ‘flat’ or ‘garage’, it has also stated that the builder can charge for stilt parking/open parking under common area and facilities separately and give preferential treatment to such payers. The entire ruling of Nahalchand Laloochand v. Panchaliis based upon the meaning of the word "garage". According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the area closed by three sides and above used for parking is a garage. This logic puts stilt area enclosed by less than three sides or not at all enclosed in a different footing than the area covered by three sides. Moreover, in Nahalchand Laloochand v. Panchali, the builder sold the parking spaces as independent units to outsiders not belonging to the building, hence, the judgement needs to be seen in its obiterdicta from the said perspective rather than generalizing the same.
Shanti Ranjan Behera
Advocate
Please go through the following:
Nahalchand Laloochand V. Panchali, The Most Misused Precedent By Litigants BY: DR. V.V.L.N. SASTRY25 FEB 2017 3:50 PM
In a 2010 judgment, in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [AIR 2010 SC 3607], a real estate company presented the argument that it is correct to sell stilt parking areas or garages as separate individual entities just like a flat, to those who do not own flats in the building and wish to use such entities as parking places. The Hon’ble Supreme Court judges- Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice R. M. Lodha however,rejected this argument while stating that such independent units or flats cannot be sold to outsiders by builders/promoters since these areas are to be for a price to the purchasers of flats and the builder/promoter can only charge as towards common areas and facilities from each flat owner in proportion to the carpet area of the flat. The judgement however, is being misconstrued by flat owners who have not purchased parking prior to the Supreme Court’s judgement of 2010. And they are in a bid to usurp the parking places purchased by co-flat owners who have paid huge amounts to the builders towards such places.Such flat owners who have not opted for purchasing parking places(hereinafter referred to as litigants)in turn, are creating problems for their co-flat owners by misinterpreting the judgement, which is to say, “even those who did not purchase parking area along with their flat are seeking a parking place by invoking this precedent.” This however, is unjust to the parking purchasers who have shelled out huge amounts to the builders to secure parking places. The argument from such litigants wanting to misuse this judgement is that, those who have paid heavy amounts towards the purchase of parking places, have done so at their own risk and have to forego their rights to such parking places. It is pertinent to note that such litigants are fully aware that they have not paid to the builder any amount towards purchase of parking place while negotiating the purchase of a flat with the builder. It would also be relevant to state here that builders have sold such parking places at very high rates to the purchasers of such places along with flats. The only defense for these litigants is the verdict on Nahalchand Laloochand v. Panchali by Supreme Court in the year 2010. This precedent is misused as the lower courts are not getting into the merits of this precedent, circumstances, premises, and case related obiterdicta. Hence, litigants are trying to invoke this precedent with retrospective effect, which in all likelihood, is poised to create multiple litigations and blur the exact position of the law.
The universal applicability of the Supreme Court judgement would come into question as the laws have been amended subsequently by the legislature in Maharashtra. The Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India (CREDAI), Pune branch, said that though the Supreme Court has made it categorically clear that “stilt parking/open parking” cannot be sold as it does not fall under the definition of ‘flat’ or ‘garage’, it has also stated that the builder can charge for stilt parking/open parking under common area and facilities separately and give preferential treatment to such payers. The entire ruling of Nahalchand Laloochand v. Panchaliis based upon the meaning of the word "garage". According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the area closed by three sides and above used for parking is a garage. This logic puts stilt area enclosed by less than three sides or not at all enclosed in a different footing than the area covered by three sides. Moreover, in Nahalchand Laloochand v. Panchali, the builder sold the parking spaces as independent units to outsiders not belonging to the building, hence, the judgement needs to be seen in its obiterdicta from the said perspective rather than generalizing the same.
Shanti Ranjan Behera
Advocate
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Anonymous
Replied 5 years ago
Dear Respected Sir,
Thanks for your detailed clarifications regard my query.
Thanks
Ambrose Leo
Responded 5 years ago
A.Takeup the parking issue as per the Land mark decision of Apex Court before the concerned authorities,if need take the services of an Expert property lawyer from the panel.
Helpful
Helpful
Share
A.Now SC says without parking place flat cannot be sold. agitate before concerned authorities
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Anonymous
Replied 5 years ago
sir, thanks for your response. but my query is, the four flat owners on 1st and 2nd floor of the apartments says that, since the ground floor flat owner had already occupied the parking space thru flat construction, he has no parking rights in this apartment. only the four flat owners of the 1st and 2nd floor can use the parking space. kindly clarify.
Read Related Answers
Formalities to be done by landlords regarding tenants in Ghaziabad UP
Dear Client,
Few metropolitan cities across the country have made police verification of tenants with local police stations mandatory for the landlord. Cities like Delhi, Bangalore, and Kolkata are a...
Flat Purchase
Dear Client,
In addition to the above, you need to obtain the following documents:
Mother Deed
Building Approval Plan
Sanctioned Plan Copy
Water & Sewage, Pollution, Electricity Approvals
Commencement...
Regarding undivided property
Dear Client,
According to the Hindu Law of Inheritance, the paternal property that is undivided for at least four generations qualifies as an ancestral property and the coparceners have an equal share...
Property - Our share of property
Dear Client,
A property when left by the deceased owner intestate i.e, without any will, is devolved upon the surviving legal heirs in equal share following the law of inheritance/succession. In ca...
Confiscated phone
Dear Client,
If a school is generally follows the CBSC rules strictly in all aspects then it might not be possible to recover your device back. Talk to the management authority and write a handwritten...
Read Blogs on Property
Property Lawyers
Find Lawyers by Location
