By I C Naik
The flat owners’ car parking mess in Mumbai has now reached almost a peak. The State cooperative department has been unwilling to insist on right things to happen. The bye law nos. 79-85 of the first Model Bye Laws 1984 contains comprehensive rules for regulating parking.
The parking spaces were to be allotted on first come first served or under a lot system. Several new Committees were at a loss to grasp the true intent of these Bye Laws because when they took charge they found members have paid for the parking spaces to builder in addition to flat purchase price and no space was available to allot the parking Bye Law No 79-85 were an eyewash known to the drafters of Bye Laws.
The recognition of members having paid for the parking is seen in Bye Law No 78(a) with 78(b) also recognizing Committee’s prerogative to allot the unsold parking slots.
In the meanwhile judiciary rejected the builder’s prerogative to sale the parking as the space was jointly owned by the housing society and the builder had no legal right. But the Model Bye Laws 2009 [in the Bye Laws 78(b) indirectly recognized this position without saying so] and even proposed model 2013 recognizes sale of parking as builder’s prerogative [In Bye Law No 80 in these words ”The allotment of parking spaces/stilts shall be made by the committee on the basis of “ First come First Served” for unsold and available parking spaces”
A few days back the civic body BMC issued order mandating that builders must provide free parking spaces even if it has not been purchased by the flat purchaser. This order has been viewed as a most welcome step by housing society activists, as if it is going to work well.
As per BMC requirements a builder’s parking statement has to detail the number of parking spaces officially allowed along with a clear demarcation of visitors’ parking areas. A civic official, not wishing to be named, reportedly said that in violation of the plans, flat buyers were often conned into buying spaces even though their flat size doesn’t make them eligible to have one.
“The builder often sells the space required for visitors’ parking, which an innocent flat buyer would pay for without realising the illegality. This can invite legal action by the BMC and the buyer might lose his space,” One cooperative activist reportedly lamented.
A Lawyer reportedly advised that “A buyer must check the approved plans and realise that only societies have the right to allocate parking spaces to individual members. The builder, beyond creation of the space, has no role to play and the Supreme Court has held the sale to be illegal.” But this was what provided in 1984 Model the Bye Laws. Where else the buyer is going to verify.
One lawyer went to an extent that a buyer has every right to drag the builder to the consumer forum if he has been cheated into buying a parking space.
Earlier reportedly the civic body has asked a Kandivli society to give parking space to a flat owner even though he had not purchased a slot from the builder. The civic body had quoted the little-known provisions of the development control regulations (Section 36) and asked the society to disregard parking allotments made by the builder and observed that as per the DCR, the builder has to mandatorily provide free parking spaces to residents whose flats are above a certain size.
BMC is concurrently working on s system of allotment of parking in the nearby streets of housing societies at a fee so that all residents get a car parking space. As per Section 36 (2) of the Development Control Rules at least 10% space has to be reserved for visitors. Is there a match between these two statements?
“Parking Mess” needs out of the box thinking with extreme urgency sporadic steps will not solve it but enhance the intensity of the mess. The number of cars getting added in to City-fleet will one day create a situation where there will be hardly any space between any two cars on the road anywhere which will allow either car to move forward or backward with a speed higher than that of a pedestrian on the footpath.
What is to be done in a situation where a flat owner already owns parking spaces purchased from the builder/society and has also been allotted an additional space for parking (in a subsequent General body meeting) which he then refuses to give up even though another member needs and asks for it.
Is the onus on the general body to disallow the earlier allotment (by voting against this seemingly unfair allotment) and re allot the space or what remedy can the second applicant for the parking space seek to resolve this ?
Although in the spirit of fairness it seems correct for the first member to surrender the space is there any legal recourse ?