Parking spaces cannot be sold by the builder

PrintPDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2544 OF 2010

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. 

Versus

Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2545 OF 2010

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2546 OF 2010

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2547 OF 2010

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2548 OF 2010

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2449 OF 2010

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2456 OF 2010

Date : August 31, 2010

The Supreme Court has upheld thatorder of the Bombay High Court and held that parking spaces cannot be sold by the builder. They are a part of the common areas and the cost of that land has to be charged to all the flat-owners in proportion to their carpet area. (Nahalchand Laloochand P.Ltd. vs Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. – JT 2010 (9) SC 414: 2010 AIR SCW 5549).

In para. 34 of the aforesaid judgementthe Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“34. We have now come to the last question namely– what are the rights of a promoter vis-a-vis society (of flat purchasers) in respect of stilt parking space/s. It was argued that the right of the promoter to dispose of the stilt parking space is a matter falling within the domain of the promoter’s contractual, legal and fundamental right and such right is not affected. This argument is founded on the premise, firstly, that stilt parking space is a `flat’ by itself within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) and in the alternative that it is not part of `common areas’. But we have already held that `stilt parking space’ is not covered by the term `garage’ much less a `flat’ and that it is part of `common areas’. As a necessary corollary to theanswers given by us to question nos. (i) to (iii), it must be held that stilt parking space/s being part of `common areas’ of the building developed by the promoter, the only right that the promoter has, is to charge the cost thereof in proportion to the carpet area of the flat from each flat purchaser. Such stilt parking space being neither `flat’ under Section 2(a-1) nor `garage’ within the meaning ofthat provision is not sellable at all.”