2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62858
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Suresh Kumar, P. Dhanabal, JJ
Mayank Dhama – Appellant
Versus
Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd. – Respondent
C.M.S.A.No.51 of 2025 | C.M.S.A.No.52 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.K.Subashini
For the Respondents: M/s.Chennai Law Associates
The definition of 'Reserved Car Park' allows for charging fees even if it's in a common area, affirming the exclusive rights of allottees.
Headnote:This judgment discusses the legality of charging fees for allotted reserved car parking based on the definitions provided in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The court examined if charging for parking in a common space was justified, asserting that a reserved car park, even in a stilt area, can be charged as it provides exclusive rights to the allottee. The conclusion reached is that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's decision against the appellants, confirming the Real Estate Regulatory Authority's stance, is valid and reinforces the provisions of the law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case appeals against tnrera's decision. (Para 1) |
| 2. argument on validity of parking charge. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. final ruling and dismissal of appeal. (Para 4) |
For the Appellants : Ms.K.Subashini in both CMSAs for M/s.Chennai Law Associates COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
These two civil miscellaneous second appeals were filed against a common order passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in Appeal Nos.8 and 10 of 2025.
2. The issue was whether the respondent Promoter was entitled to charge a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for allotment of car parking, that is exclusive reserved car parking, to the allottees.
3. One of such appeal, that is C.M.S.A.No.50 of 2025, had been considered by us and we passed a detailed order yesterday, that is on 29.07.2025, where, we have held as follows:-
“11. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, which has been dealt with exhaustively by the TNRERA, where each of the allottees have been given allotment of a flat and a flat number has been given and against each of the flat numbers, an alloted car parking bay also has been given. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, car parking bay No.7 has been allotted, which is a reserved car parking.
12. Insofar as the term “Reserved Car Park”
is concerned, it has been defined in Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2017 , which reads thus:-
“2(k) “Reserved Car Park” means an enclosed or unenclosed, covered or open area which is sufficient in size to park vehicles and which may be provided in basements and/or stilt and/or podium and/or independent structure built for providing parking spaces and/or parking provided by mechanized parking arrangements and which is not a garage.”
From the meaning of “Reserved Car Park”, as has been defined under Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2017 , it can easily be ascertained that “Reserved Car Park” means an enclosed or unenclosed, covered or open area which is sufficient in size to park vehicles and which may be provided in basements, stilt, podium, independent structure and etc. Therefore, such a reserved car parking area can be provided even in a stilt floor of the building.
13. Here in the case in hand, the main argument articulated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the car parking, since has been alloted only in the stilt area, which is covered in the common area and therefore, it cannot be treated as a separate car parking area apart from the common area which has already been allotted and sold to the flat allottees and therefore, such car parking area, allotted in a stilt area, cannot be charged separately even by way of charge proportionate to the flat, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel contended.
14. We are not impressed with the said argument for the simple reason that, the definition given in Rule 2(k) of the Rules of 2017 , for “Reserved Car Park” means it can be provided by way of an enclosed or unenclosed, covered or open area, it can be provided either in the basement or in the stilt or podium or independent structure built for providing such a car parking area. Therefore, if a car parking area, merely because is alloted in a stilt area, it cannot be stated that such car parking area shall form part of the building and therefore, even the charges which is corresponding to the construction of the stilt area which is now allotted as reserved car parking cannot be charged by the Promoter. If such a proposition is accepted, then the cost of the builders to construct the stilt area knowing well that it is going to be alloted only for car parking area cannot be recovered from anyone.
15. Moreover, insofar as the car parking area is concerned, there are two issues, one is that in some construction, flats might be alloted, but there won't be any reserved car parking alloted to any flat owners. That means, there would be open car parking and anyone can park their vehicles like “first