Flat owner en­ti­tled to one park­ing space: HC

The Times of India (Mumbai edition) - - TIMES CITY - Shibu.Thomas @times­group.com

Mumbai: No flat owner is nor­mally el­i­gi­ble for more than one stilt or open park­ing space on hous­ing so­ci­ety premises un­less there is a va­cant spot or an­other mem­ber does not want it, the Bom­bay high court has said. Jus­tice Ramesh Dhanuka said that such va­cant space will be al­lot­ted on a “year-to-year ba­sis” to flat own­ers who want ad­di­tional park­ing lots.

The court was hear­ing a pe­ti­tion filed by a Ban­dra hous­ing so­ci­ety chal­leng­ing a co­op­er­a­tive court di­rec­tive to cre­ate ad­di­tional park­ing space for a new mem­ber’s car. Jus­tice Dhanuka struck down the in­terim or­der and asked the so­ci­ety to de­cide the is­sue of whether the mem­ber was en­ti­tled to park­ing space on the premises within a year.

“A pe­rusal of by­law in­di­cates that a mem­ber hav­ing a mo­tor ve­hi­cle will be el­i­gi­ble to have stilt or open park­ing space. No mem­ber shall nor­mally be el­i­gi­ble for be­ing al­lot­ted more than one stilt or park­ing space for park­ing car,” said Jus­tice Dhanuka. The judge re­ferred to a by­law and said the “ques­tion of al­lot­ment of two car park­ing spa­ces would arise only if any mem­ber of the so­ci­ety who has not been al­lot­ted even a sin­gle stilt or park­ing space does not re­quire such car —Bom­bay high court park­ing. In that event, the only man­ner in which ad­di­tional car park­ing can be al­lot­ted is by al­lot­ting car park­ing on a year-to-year ba­sis”.

The pe­ti­tion was filed by Royal Manor hous­ing so­ci­ety in Ban­dra, which was con­structed in 2004. The so­ci­ety, with 20 mem­bers, had 19 stilt and five open park­ing spa­ces. The builder al­lot­ted the park­ing spa­ces to 19 flat mem­bers, in­clud­ing five who got ad­di­tional space to park their ve­hi­cles. A new mem­ber who bought a flat in 2012 ap­plied for a park­ing space, but this was re­jected by the so­ci­ety on the grounds that the orig­i­nal mem­ber who had sold the apart­ment was not al­lot­ted any park­ing. In 2015, in an in­terim or­der the co­op­er­a­tive court or­dered the so­ci­ety to cre­ate an ad­di­tional park­ing space for the new mem­ber. The so­ci­ety chal­lenged this or­der on the grounds that it did not have any ad­di­tional space and such an in­terim or­der could not have been granted.

The high court agreed that the in­terim or­der could not have been passed. "The (new flat own­ers) in my view, had not demon­strated any ex­tra­or­di­nary cir­cum­stances for grant of such manda­tory in­terim in­junc­tion by cre­at­ing an ad­di­tional car park­ing when all 24 car park­ing spa­ces are al­ready al­lot­ted with­out ren­der­ing any find­ing that the dou­ble car park­ing spa­ces al­lot­ted to some of the mem­bers were in vi­o­la­tion of by­law of the pe­ti­tioner so­ci­ety,” said the high court.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.