Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14.4. He also submitted that report filed by the Respondent No 2 where the Petitioner came to know the sanction granted by Municipal Commissioner dated 31 May 2014, which clearly stated that staircase, lift, lobby is free of FSI and it cannot be used for construction and counted for the purpose of consumption of FSI. Hence, Petitioners are rightly entitled for 405 sq. ft. carpet area. Since, he submitted that in the absence of Cooperative society, Respondent No 4 has become the master and sole decision maker in the present DCR 33(7) scheme and allotment of Permanent alternate accommodation to the tenants has been done by the Amol D. Nawale wp.1254.2016(1).odt developer himself without initiating any "Lottery System" . Therefore, every decision is made by the Developer / Respondent No 4 and participation of tenants is absent. 14.5. He also submitted that, the (Respondent No.4) Developer has not taken any concrete steps to inform the tenants / occupants regarding their permanent location of Rehab Tenants which is mandatory duty of the Developer in the light of the Judgment passed by this Court in the matter of -"New Woodlands Cooperative Housing Society Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and Ors" , 14.6. Mr. Khan submitted that, as per ambiguous and vague Clause No. 9 (L) of the Draft Agreement, Developer has only agreed to provide 18 number of parking to the tenants / occupants which is not correct position contemplated in D.C. Regulation, 1991. Moreover, on the basis of entitlement of 405 sq.ft carpet area Petitioners are entitled for one parking area for every 04 [four] tenements with carpet area exceeding 35 sq.mtrs [376.6 sq.ft area] additional parking allotment free of cost as per Regulation No. 36 of DCR, Table - 15, Sr. No. (1) (i) (B) which is absent in the Draft Agreement of the Developer / Landlord and it is bound to prejudice the rights of the Petitioners. So also the Amol D. Nawale wp.1254.2016(1).odt Respondent No 4, has insisted the incorporation of less car parking numbers in the agreement to restrict Petitioners from claiming their lawful car parking areas.

20. As regards to the parking issue the Petitioners have claimed that as they are entitlement of 405 Sq Ft carpet area, they Amol D. Nawale wp.1254.2016(1).odt will be entitled for one parking area for every four tenements with the carpet area exceeding 35 sq mtr (376.6 sq. ft) additional parking allotment free of cost as per regulation No.36 of DCR, table-15,serial No.(1) (i) (B). Since we have already held that the Petitioners are entitled for area 405 Sq Ft area as Rehab, hence, Petitioners/Tenant would be entitled for one parking area for every 4 tenements and additional parking allotment free of cost as per Regulation No.36 of DCR, table-15, Serial No.1 (i) (B), which may be made available to them within eight weeks.