Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(j) to (l) .....

(m) when the flats are advertised for sale, disclose inter alia in the advertisement the following particulars, namely :-

(i) the extent of the carpet area of the flat including the area of the balconies which should be shown separately;
(ii) the price of the flat including the proportionate price of the common areas and facilities which should be shown separately, to be paid by the purchaser of flat; and the intervals at which the instalments thereof may be paid;
(iii) the nature, extent and description of the common areas and facilities;
(iv) the nature, extent and description of limited common areas and facilities, if any.
(n) sell flat on the basis of the carpet area only:
Provided that, the promoter may separately charge for the common areas and facilities in proportion `to the carpet area of the flat'.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, the carpet area of the flat shall include the area of the balcony of such flat."

38. It was argued that under MOFA it is for the promoter to prescribe and define at the outset the `common areas' and unless it is so done by the promoter, the parking area cannot be termed as part of `common areas'. We are quite unable to accept this submission. Can a promoter take common passage/lobbies or say stair case or RG area out of purview of `common areas and facilities' by not prescribing or defining the same in the `common areas'? If the answer to this question is in negative, which it has to be, this argument must fail. It was also submitted that by treating open/stilt parking space as part of `common areas', every flat purchaser will have to bear proportionate cost for the same although he may not be interested in such parking space at all. We do not think such consideration is relevant for the consideration of term `common areas and facilities' in MOFA. It is not necessary that all flat purchasers must actually use `common areas and facilities' in its entirety. The relevant test is whether such part of the building is normally in common use. Then it was submitted that if a parking space is sold to a flat purchaser, it is to the exclusion of other flat purchasers and, therefore, logically also it cannot be part of `common areas'. This submission is founded on assumption that parking space (open/covered) is a `garage' and sellable along with the flat. We have, however, held in our discussion above that open to the sky parking area or stilted portion usable as parking space is not `garage' within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) and, therefore, not sellable independently as a flat or along with a flat. As a matter of fact, insofar as the promoter is concerned, he is not put to any prejudice financially by treating open parking space/stilt parking space as part of `common areas' since he is entitled to charge price for the common areas and facilities from each flat purchaser in proportion to the carpet area of the flat. MOFA mandates the promoter to describe `common areas and facilities' in the advertisement as well as the `agreement' with the flat purchaser and the promoter is also required to indicate the price of the flat including the proportionate price of the `common areas and facilities'. If a promoter does not fully disclose the common areas and facilities he does so at his own peril. Stilt parking spaces would not cease to be part of common areas and facilities merely because the promoter has not described the same as such in the advertisement and agreement with the flat purchaser. Although there is some merit in the contention of the appellant that High Court erred in placing reliance on the two aspects--namely, that the area of stilt parking space is not included in the FSI and such area is not assessable to the corporation taxes - in reaching the conclusion that stilt parking space is part of `common areas' but in our view even if these two aspects are excluded, in what we have discussed above stilt parking space/open parking space of a building regulated by MOFA is nothing but a part of `common areas' and, accordingly, we answer question no. (iii) in the affirmative.

40. MOFA was enacted by the Maharashtra Legislature as it was found that builders/developers/promoters were indulging in malpractices in the sale and transfer of flats and the flat purchasers were being exploited. The effect of MOFA may be summarized as follows. First, every promoter who constructs or intends to construct block or building of flats in the area to which MOFA applies has to strictly adhere to the provisions contained therein, i.e., inter alia, he has to make full and true disclosure of the nature of his title to the land on which the flats are constructed and also make disclosure in respect of the extent of the carpet area of the flat and the nature, extent and description of the common areas and facilities when the flats are advertised for sale. Secondly, the particulars which are set out in Section 4(1A) (a) (i) to (x) have to be incorporated in the agreement with the flat purchaser. Thirdly, the promoter has to apply to the Registrar for registration of the organization (co-operative society or company or condominium) as soon as minimum number of persons required to form such organization have taken flats. As regards unsold flats, the promoter has to join such organization although his right to dispose of unsold flats remains unaffected. Fourthly, and more importantly, the promoter has to take all necessary steps to complete his title and convey to the organization his right, title and interest in the land and building and execute all relevant documents accordingly. It was argued by Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, learned counsel for the promoter that in view of the provisions of MOFA, Section 6 of T.P. Act and Article 300A of the Constitution, the right of the promoter to transfer parking spaces is not at all restricted. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors..4, Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. N. Narasimahaiah & Ors.5 and Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel & Ors., (2006) 10 SCC 452 (2008) 5 SCC 176 v. State of Gujarat & Anr.6, he submitted that the provisions contained in MOFA must be construed strictly and there is no provision either express or by necessary implication in MOFA restricting the sale of stilt or open parking spaces. Mr. Sunil Gupta also argued that promoter continues to have contractual, legal and fundamental right to dispose of the stilt/open parking space in the manner in which he proposes and his consumers accept. We think this argument does not bear detailed examination. Suffice it to say that if the argument of learned senior counsel and counsel for promoter is accepted, the mischief with which MOFA is obviously intended to deal with would remain unabated and flat purchasers would continue to be exploited indirectly by the promoters. In our opinion, MOFA does restrict the rights of the promoter in the block or building constructed for flats or to be constructed for flats to which that Act applies. The promoter has no right to sell any portion of such building which is not `flat' within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) and the entire land and building has to be conveyed to the organisation; the only right remains with the (2008) 4 SCC 144 promoter is to sell unsold flats. It is, thus, clear that the promoter has no right to sell `stilt parking spaces' as these are neither `flat' nor appurtenant or attachment to a `flat'.