In one Common compound there are 3 individual society They have their structure clearly independent from each other No common wall Bldg A and B were constructed in year 2007&2010 Bldg C in 2011 Each society has diff OC OC clearly specifies Structure and parking slots Bldg C was premium with higher sq feet area and has an attached parking structure of 4 level Structure is only attached to bldg no C In the early plan which has a stamp from engineer as To be read with accompaniment Described Proposed parking slots as 35 for A 40 for B 60 for C But location is not specified Each bldg A,B and C has seperate plan which shows parking slots as 13 stilt for Bldg A 18 stilt for bldg B 158 parking in 4 levels for Bldg C After OC on BMC taxation assessment engineer Level 4 of Bldg C is open to sky Hence taxes is only on level 3 t I.e 110 parkings The entire open space in the common compound has 75 parking slots marked by the bldg A and B They occupy it Common plan shows this 75 slots as recreation ground but builder has made it concrete. Builder was a cheat and for his greed he issued some allotment letter for 10 residents in bldg A and B as parking in Bldg C podium level Also each build resident agreement clearly defined that Builder will create 3 seperate societies Builder has not given any handover to bldg C for parking details for other society Question Bldg no A and B Out of greed is keeping open slots with them and says they want 35+40 = 75 -(31 stilt) i.e 39 parking from bldg no C in their structure despite knowing the fact that OC of bldg no C clearly mention parking structure as Bldg no C only and that these parking slots 110 are sold by builder in agreement to bldg no c residents The case is registered in civil court What is the legal stand here for bldg no C to deny this demand from A and B All agreement are MOFA
3 buildings have been constructed on one plot of land
they may be separate societies but plot of land has not been subdivided
the defence that can be taken by C is that parking spots in building C is for flat owners having flat in said building and residents of other buildings cannot claim parking slots in C
Building C owners should insist on sanctioned building plan, occupation certificate plan, compounding plan and if there is completetion certificate plan. That would be only basis and assertion of claim. Secondly usage from 2011 by building C owner be also highlighted. No purpose would be served in blaming builder.
The 4 level structure is attached to bldg no C
Means it is an exclusive part of bldg C
Which in turn means that only residents of bldg C can avail the parking spaces in that 4 level structure as determined by the society
The OC of bldg C also specifies the same
If certain residents from bldg A and B were sold parking slots in the structure attached to bldg C, that would not mean that they can lay a claim over the parking slots in bldg C
The flat purchasers in A and B would be shown the building plans as regards bldg A and B. So they had full knowledge that the structure attached to bldg C is not any annexure to bldg A and B
The fact that 3 separate societies are formed shows that the flat purchasers in each bldg were aware what is part of their bldg and what is not
At the highest the A and B bldg residents have a claim against the builder who sold the parking slots in bldg C to them. Those purchasers purchased the bldg C parking slots at their own risk and peril
Those sales would not bind the proposed society to be formed of bldg C residents
Dear Client,
The four-level structure attached to Building C is an exclusive part of Building C. This means that only Building C residents can use the parking spaces in that structure. This is also specified in the occupancy certificate (OC) for Building C.
If some residents of Buildings A and B were sold parking spaces in the structure attached to Building C, this does not mean that they have any claim to those parking spaces. The building plans for Buildings A and B would have made it clear to these residents that the structure attached to Building C is not part of their buildings.
The fact that three separate societies have been formed for the three buildings shows that the residents of each building were aware of what is part of their building and what is not.
At most, the residents of Buildings A and B can make a claim against the builder who sold them the parking spaces in Building C. These residents purchased the parking spaces at their own risk and peril, and their purchases do not bind the proposed society for Building C residents.
Thank you for your answere Well bldg A and B is highlighting the plan proposed which had a stamp as final to be read with accompaniment Basis on a proposed parking no which was mentioned is the plan in their bldg an exorbitant no was mentioned but no location was specified. On this ground only they are claiming. Will that have a legal stand?
It is necessary to peruse sanctioned plans for parking .suit filed by building A and B to advice
Though all the three societies are within the same compound, all the three buildings i.e., A, B and C are totally different to each other including the building approved plans, OCs etc.
Besides all the three buildings have their own societies which was recognised by builder as separate entities.
The builder's cheating activity of allotting some of the parking slots to other buildings/societies will not be binding on the society C.
The documentary evidence of building structure plans approved by competent authority, OCs obtained and the land underneath along with the approval for stilt as well as open parking spaces allotted to the C society are documentary evidences to prove that the parking space allotted to C society are exclusive property of this c society.
You can argue the case on the basis of strong and substantial documentary evidences and merits on your side and get their case nullified.
The plan of an engineer with the stamp is not a plan approved document, even if that document is relied upon, what about the construction completion certificate and the OC given separately to the building C.
Therefore the letter by an engineer with his stamp is nothing but a fancy idea being utilised by vested interest because they do not have any other supporting document to argue their case.
You fight out your case properly.
The exorbitant number was mentioned in the bldg plan of A and B
That would not entitle them to look to other bldg ie bldg C
You will need to show the documents to a competent lawyer
If it’s rera paid parking society doesn’t have any stand. As per the society has rights to allot parking to members. You can contest the said civil case
"No" means what? Claim based on proposed plan would not substantiate. In fact they have no claim. Go with sanctioned, compounded and finally with completion plan which is final.
Dear Client,
The astronomical figure was explicitly referenced in the architectural blueprint of both Building A and Building B. However, the mere inclusion of this figure does not grant them the authority or justification to extend their scope of inquiry to encompass Building C.
- Since, Bldg C is constructed in 2011 and OC showing that this Bldg having parking slots , then the builder having
no right to sanction even a single parking slot to other Bldg
- Further , the parking slot as mentioned in the OC is only for the resident of C and it cannot be used by A and B ,
and the builder having no authority to sanction the same to any other person and such steps of the builder can be a
ground for filing complaint for the offence of cheating and breach of trust
- Further, the purchaser of the flat in A & B can also lodge a complaint against the builder for cheating in the name of
parking as they will have no authority to use the parking slot of C even after getting an agreement from the builder.
