The promoters can charge for reserved car parking in proportion to the flat's carpet area; no refund claims by allottees are valid.

For the Appellant : Ms.K.Subashini for M/s.Chennai Law Associates JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This civil miscellaneous second appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, [in short, “TNREAT”] in Appeal No.13 of 2025 dated 21.02.2025.

2. In fact, the order impugned dated 21.02.2025 is a common order, where, many number of appeals, that is Appeal Nos.5 to 14 of 2025 have been dealt with and a common order has been passed.

3. The appellant, along with similar persons or similar allottees who have got allotments of residential flats from the respondent Promoter, have approached the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Chennai, [in short, “TNRERA”], by filing various RCPs, which includes R.C.P.No.84 of 2023, filed by the appellant.

4. Their common grievance appears to be that they have been allotted flats and also have been allotted car parking, which according to them, forms part of the flat or an integral part of the flat. Therefore, once the cost of the flat has been fixed and the entire consideration has been paid by each of the allottees, the Promoter has no right to secure any additional charge or a charge to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs from each of the allottees for the allotment of car parking in the stilt area. Therefore, the sum of Rs.3 lakhs, paid by each of them to the Promoter, has to be refunded by the Promoter. In order to seek such refund only, those RCPs were filed by the respective allottees including the appellant.

5. The TNRERA, by the common order dated 13.09.2024, has considered the issue in detail and having considered the case and the counter case projected before it, the TNRERA, having gone through the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, [for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2017”], especially Rule 2(k) for the meaning of “Reserved Car Park” and also having gone into the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been mainly relied upon by the parties, in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. vs. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Limited , [(2010) 9 SCC 536] has come to the conclusion that, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment ofNahalchand (cited supra), the Promoters have no right to sell any portion of such building, which is not a flat within the meaning of Section 2 (a-1), however, insofar as the charges for the car parking area is concerned, it has been held that the Promoter is having the only right that it has to charge the cost thereof in proportion to the carpet area of the flat from each flat purchaser.

6. Therefore, having taken clue from the said holding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nahalchand (cited supra and also having taken note of the rule position in Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2017 and also taking note of the specific allotment of reserved car parking, alloted by the Promoter to each of the allottees including the appellant herein, the TNRERA has ultimately come to the conclusion that the allottees, who are the complainants before the TNRERA, have no right to seek refund of Rs.3 lakhs each from the Promoter.

7. That is how the TNRERA decided the complaints against the complainants by the common order dated 13.09.2024, against which, the allotees filed appeals in Appeal Nos.5 to 14 of 2025 before the TNREAT. The TNREAT, by the common order dated 21.02.2025, rejected all those appeals including the appeal filed by the present appellant, that is Appeal No.13 of 2025.

8. We have heard Ms.K.Subash