As per the general practice in the market, the developer, by the agreement of sale, sells only the ‘flat’ and the purchaser has rights in respect of only the flat and no other portion of the building. This is exactly what had been agreed to between the developer Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited and the flat purchasers of Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.Each flat purchaser had executed a declaration to the effect that stilt parking spaces/open parking spaces shown in the plan exclusively belong to the promoter and that the Society has no objection to the sale of such spaces by it. However, this was later argued by the Society as being contrary to law and hence, not binding. When the dispute arose, the developer approached the Bombay Civil Court seeking “permanent injunction restraining the Society from encroaching upon, trespassing and/or in any manner disturbing, obstructing or interfering with its possession in respect of 25 parking spaces in the stilt portion of the building”.
In a 2010 judgment, Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [AIR 2010 SC 3607], the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the argument of a real estate development company that they are entitled to sell garages or stilt parking areas as separate flats to owners who intend to use it as parking facilities. A bench of Justices A K Patnaik and R M Lodha, ruled that builders or promoters cannot sell parking areas as independent units or flats as these areas are to be extended as “common areas and facilities” for the owners. Also, the Court said that the developer is only entitled to charge price for the common areas and facilities from each flat purchaser in proportion to the carpet area of the flat.
In the words of the Court : “The promoter has no right to sell any portion of such building which is not ‘flat’ within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) and the entire land and building has to be conveyed to the organisation; the only right remains with the promoter is to sell unsold flats. It is, thus, clear that the promoter has no right to sell ‘stilt parking spaces’ as these are neither ‘flat’ nor appurtenant or attachment to a ‘flat’. A `flat' to be within the meaning of the definition in Sec. 2 (a-1), it must be a separate unit conforming to the description capable of being used for one of the purposes given in the definition.
the Court has categorically stated that the meaning and significance of the bracketed portion "(and includes a garage)" should be seen in the context given to the word `flat' which is true indication of intent of the legislature. The phrase `and includes a garage' in the bracket does not bring in `garage' by itself within the meaning of word `flat'. If stand alone `garage' was intended by the legislature to be a `flat' within the meaning of Section 2(a-1), that could have been conveyed by use of the expression `or garage' after the word `business' in the same breath as preceding uses. The bracketed phrase is indicative of the legislative intention to include a `garage' as appurtenant or attachment to a flat which satisfies the ingredients of Section 2(a-1).
From the above contents and judgement by supreme court, it can be construed that you have bought this garage as a separate unit with separate sale deed with the meaning of garage' and not a parking space, hence there cannot be any objection from any quarter for you holding it as a garage even after selling your flat.
As this is not coming within the meaning of parking space and has been properly defined as garage, in my opinion, you may continue to hold and use this separate property for the purpose it was bought.