MahaRERA restores flat buyer’s parking rights in Mumbai project

Fight over parking allotment

According to Advocate Godfrey Pimenta, who represented Dharnidharka, the dispute centred on two car parking spaces originally allotted to the complainant, Parking Nos A-76 and A-77 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 objection.

The same parking spot shown with different numbers after renumbering by developer, which MahaRERA held, cannot extinguish buyer’s rights

However, in June 2019, the developer issued a fresh allotment letter unilaterally assigning different parking spaces, Nos. P1-4A and P1-4B. 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 developer.

Despite 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 said.

MahaRERA rejects objection

The 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 RERA.

The 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 agreements.

It further observed that the developer had voluntarily submitted to MahaRERA’s jurisdiction and had participated in conciliation proceedings, thereby waiving its right to raise jurisdictional objections at a later stage.

Unilateral change illegal

On merits, the Authority found that the complainant’s rights over the originally allotted parking spaces stood crystallised through the Agreement for Sale, payment of consideration, long-standing use, and issuance of parking stickers by the housing society. 

MahaRERA ruled that once possession is handed over and the society is formed, the promoter has no authority to alter or re-allot parking spaces without the allottee’s consent.

The Authority categorically held that mere renumbering cannot extinguish vested rights, particularly when the allottee continues to occupy the same physical parking spaces. The developer’s conduct was termed arbitrary, illegal, and amounting to unfair practice and deficiency in service under Section 18(3) of RERA.

Key directions by MahaRERA

Allowing the complaint partly, MahaRERA issued the following directions:
>> Quashing of the allotment letter dated June 13, 2019, which sought to re-allot different parking spaces.
>> Permanent protection of possession of the originally allotted parking spaces A-76 and A-77, now renumbered as 388 and 387.
>> Restraint on the developer from creating any third-party rights over the said parking spaces.
>> Direction to issue a fresh allotment letter confirming the renumbered parking spaces as a continuation of the original allotment.
>> Award of Rs 25,000 as litigation costs payable by the developer to the complainant.

Broader significance

The 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 settled.

The 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 promoters.

What they say

Advocate Godfrey Pimenta said, “This 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 complainant’s consent. 

On 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 self-serving. Such assertions cannot override vested contractual and statutory rights after years of settled possession.”

Complainant speaks

“I 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 consideration,” said Dharnidharka.

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!