O R D E R

The petitioner is an Association whose members opted to purchase 62 flats in a self-financing house scheme floated by the second respondent individually. As per the scheme, the entire cost of the flats has to be paid, and an agreement too has been entered into by the second respondent with each of the members of the petitioner's Association.

2. The agreement inter alia provided that the flats would be delivered to the purchasers thereof only upon they paying the entire sale consideration. In the context of the present case, Clause-22(a) is relevant which reads as below :

"22(a). The purchaser of the flat shall make his/her own arrangement to park their vehicles (i.e.,) to park the cars either in the stilt area and to park the two wheelers in the space around the blocks of flat."

3. The schedule provides sale of undivided share in the entire plot to each of the purchasers of the apartment. It is in this setting, the third respondent had come out with a notice dated 07.06.2022, wherein it demanded the cost of the parking area and the stilt area. According to the petitioner, this is illegal on two scores:

(a)that there is no specific term in the agreement; and (b) that the members of the petitioner's Association having paid for the cost of the undivided share in the plot, are required to pay twice over for the same extent.

4. The second respondent has filed its counter and it is contended that:

(a)A scheme for construction of HIG Flats (Stilt + 6 Floors) in Kilpauk Garden Colony, Chennai was framed in the year 2019 by the respondent-Board for the benefit of General Public. The scheme was provided with 70 covered car parking slots and 50 open car parking slots. In other words, each flat was provided with one covered car parking and one open car parking. The planning permission of the scheme was accorded by Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in PP.No.11969, dated 03.06.2019. The scheme was registered with RERA vide reference No.MS:TN/29/Building/0173/2019.

(b)An advertisement was issued in "Daily Thanthi" dated 01.12.2019 by the third respondent calling applications from the General Public for allotment of the flats, wherein the selling price of the flat was quoted as Rs.10,400/- per sq.ft. The price is exclusive of car parking slot. The sale of application was from 04.12.2019 to 03.01.2020. In the lot conducted on 26.02.2020, initially 15 flats were allotted. Subsequently, all the flats were sold through drawal of lot and on first come first serve basis.

(c)The agreement for sale of flat was executed in July 2020 and possession handed over to all the allottees in September 2021. As per the norms of the Respondent-Board, petitioners have to pay for the entire cost of the flat for execution of sale deed including the cost of the car parking.

(d)While so, a letter dated 20.07.2021 was sent to all the members of the association by the respondent-Board intimating the lot for the allotment of car parking slots on 30.07.2021. The duly constituted Allotment Committee in the lot conducted on 30.07.2021, allotted all the 120 car parking slots to the allottees.

(e)After conducting the lot on 30.07.2021, a letter was sent to all the allottees of the flats on 04.05.2022 by the third respondent by intimating the cost of open car parking at Rs.1,00,000/- and covered car parking at Rs.1,50,000/- in pursuance of the minutes of the Pricing Committee Meeting held on 12.02.2020. The respondent- Board has followed the due procedure and the norms hitherto followed in having allotted the car parking slots and demanding the cost for the car parking slots from the allottees.

(f) In the advertisement issued by the respondent-Board the selling price of Rs.10,400/- quoted by the third respondent is exclusive of charges for the car parking slots. The Pricing Committee in its meeting held on 12.02.2020 approved the selling price and charges for the open and covered car parking slots.

(g)The advertisement was released only for the flats and not for the c