MahaRERA restores flat buyer’s parking rights in Mumbai project

In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of homebuyers the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority MahaRERA has directed a Mumbaibased developer to restore the originally allotted car parking spaces to a flat purchaser and restrained the developer from creating any thirdparty rights over the said parking The Authority held that unilateral alteration of parking allotments after possession amounts to an unfair practice under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016 RERAThe order was passed by MahaRERA Member II Ravindra Deshpande in Complaint No CC006000000292217 filed by Preeti Dharnidharka against CCI Projects Pvt Ltd Cable Corporation of India Ltd and White Spring A Cooperative Housing Society Ltd The dispute relates to a residential project named ldquoWhitespringrdquo at Rivali Park in MumbaiFight over parking allotmentAccording to Advocate Godfrey Pimenta who represented Dharnidharka the dispute centred on two car parking spaces originally allotted to the complainant Parking Nos A76 and A77 on Parking Level 1 The complainant had paid Rs 8 lakh for the parking spaces as part of the flat purchase Dharnidharka took possession of her flat in April 2018 and had been continuously using the allotted parking spaces without objectionThe same parking spot shown with different numbers after renumbering by developer which MahaRERA held cannot extinguish buyerrsquos rightsHowever in June 2019 the developer issued a fresh allotment letter unilaterally assigning different parking spaces Nos P14A and P14B The complainant objected stating that the revised allotment was never agreed to She maintained that she had only temporarily used alternative parking during construction activities based on assurances given by the developerDespite this the developer later renumbered the original parking spaces as Nos 388 and 387 allegedly attempting to treat them as newly created slots The complainant alleged that the renumbering was carried out with mala fide intent to resell the original parking spaces to third parties at higher rates despite her settled possession Pimenta saidMahaRERA rejects objectionThe developer raised a preliminary objection arguing that the complaint was not maintainable before MahaRERA due to the presence of an arbitration clause in the Agreement for Sale executed prior to the enactment of RERAThe Authority rejected the contention reiterating that RERA is a special welfare legislation with overriding effect under Section 89 Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court MahaREAT and the Bombay High Court MahaRERA held that statutory remedies under RERA cannot be ousted by private arbitration agreementsIt further observed that the developer had voluntarily submitted to MahaRERArsquos jurisdiction and had participated in conciliation proceedings thereby waiving its right to raise jurisdictional objections at a later stageUnilateral change illegalOn merits the Authority found that the complainantrsquos rights over the originally allotted parking spaces stood crystallised through the Agreement for Sale payment of consideration longstanding use and issuance of parking stickers by the housing societyMahaRERA ruled that once possession is handed over and the society is formed the promoter has no authority to alter or reallot parking spaces without the allotteersquos consentThe Authority categorically held that mere renumbering cannot extinguish vested rights particularly when the allottee continues to occupy the same physical parking spaces The developerrsquos conduct was termed arbitrary illegal and amounting to unfair practice and deficiency in service under Section 183 of RERAKey directions by MahaRERAAllowing the complaint partly MahaRERA issued the following directionsgtgt Quashing of the allotment letter dated June 13 2019 which sought to reallot different parking spacesgtgt Permanent protection of possession of the originally allotted parking spaces A76 and A77 now renumbered as 388 and 387gtgt Restraint on the developer from creating any thirdparty rights over the said parking spacesgtgt Direction to issue a fresh allotment letter confirming the renumbered parking spaces as a continuation of the original allotmentgtgt Award of Rs 25000 as litigation costs payable by the developer to the complainantBroader significanceThe order reinforces a key principle under RERA that builders cannot unilaterally alter parking allotments after possession especially where consideration has been paid and possession is settledThe ruling also sends a strong message against attempts to commercially exploit parking spaces at the cost of existing allottees Legal experts say the decision strengthens consumer confidence by affirming that original parking rights must be protected irrespective of internal rearrangements or renumbering by promotersWhat they sayAdvocate Godfrey Pimenta said ldquoThis case highlights a recurring issue in real estate practice where developers alter allotments without consent The Authority found that the respondent produced no evidence of the complainantrsquos consentOn the contrary the record showed continuous objections establishing that the change was imposed Claims that the original parking spaces no longer existed or required federation approval were rightly rejected as vague and selfserving Such assertions cannot override vested contractual and statutory rights after years of settled possessionrdquoComplainant speaksldquoI am extremely satisfied with the MahaRERA order as it acknowledges and protects the rights of flat buyers The developer sold the flat along with a dedicated parking space creating legitimate expectations After payment the developer attempted to allot my parking space to another buyer possibly for higher considerationrdquo said Dharnidharka