RERA Act Does Not Mandate Builder To Provide Guest Parking Or Equal Parking Allocation: Punjab RERA
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has recently held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not mandate builders to provide reserved guest parking, equal parking slots to all residents, or to allocate parking spaces in any specific manner.
The Authority comprising Member Binod Kumar Singh dismissed a complaint filed by homebuyer Manpreet Singh against Udit Jain (Director of One Group), One Group and Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (respondents) concerning parking allocation in the Mohali-based 'One Rise' residential project.
It observed that:
“There is no provision in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to instruct the builder to provide 5% reserved common parking space for guest, to allocate equal number of parking to all the flat owners and to define the size and area of the parking.”
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Manpreet Singh, a flat owner in the One Rise housing project in Sector 99, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
Singh claimed that the developer had not honored its commitment under the builder-buyer agreement and a subsequent addendum dated October 12, 2017, under which he said two covered parking spaces had been promised.
According to him, the parking space allotted to him was too small to accommodate a car and was located far from his flat.
He was also dissatisfied that no common parking had been reserved for visitors or economically weaker section (EWS) units and that parking slots had been distributed unequally among residents.
Singh eventually approached the Authority under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with Rule 36(1) of the Punjab Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, seeking a series of directions against the respondents.
These included directions to allot him two covered parking spaces, to allocate a standard-sized parking slot near his flat, to reserve 5% common parking space for guests and EWS residents, to allocate equal parking slots to all flat owners, and to produce the original parking layout approved by the competent authority and renumber parking spaces in the society.
Udit Jain and Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. contested the complaint, submitting that the project had been developed strictly in accordance with approved plans and applicable building bye-laws. They also pointed out that possession of the flat had already been handed over to Singh in November 2017 and that both the Occupation Certificate and Completion Certificate had been issued by the competent authority.
The respondents further stated that Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. had subsequently undergone corporate insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). During the resolution process, One Group Consortium took over the management of the company, and Singh had already received Rs 2,77,661 pursuant to the approved resolution plan.
After considering the pleadings and documents on record, the Authority held that Singh's grievance regarding parking allocation was untenable in law under the sanctioned plan and the Act.
It noted that under the sanctioned plans and applicable building bye-laws, there was no requirement to earmark separate parking spaces for visitors or EWS units, nor was there any statutory mandate requiring equal distribution of parking slots among residents.
The Authority also observed that Singh had accepted possession of the flat in 2017 without recording any protest regarding parking, and therefore could not raise such grievances several years later.
In view of these findings, the Authority disposed of the complaint, while granting Singh liberty to approach the Adjudicating Authority under the Act if he wished to seek compensation for any alleged deficiency in services by the builder or promoter.
Appearances for complainant (Manpreet Singh): Manpreet Singh, in person.
Appearances for respondents (Udit Jain, One Group, Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd.): Advocate Parampreet Singh.