Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

458.   Learned Senior Counsel for the opposite parties has relied on clause 1.16 of ABA and has argued that the allottees have been provided a dedicated car parking which is in their exclusive use. It is further argued that the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nahal Chand Lalochand (supra) is not relevant because the said judgment had been given in context of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) and Development Control Regulations in Mumbai and thus it had been passed on its own facts and does not have a universal application. It is submitted that this aspect of the Nahal Chand Lalochand (supra) has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in DLF Ltd. vs. Manohan Lowe (2014) 12 SCC 231. It is submitted that despite this fact, the complainants have selectively referred only the judgment of Nahal Chand Lalochand and have not brought to the notice of this Commission the subsequent judgment in the matter of Manohan Lowe. It is submitted that as per the bylaws 16 of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike (BBMP) one car parking space with any apartment over the size of 50 sq. mt. has been mandated. It is further submitted that there is no restriction on the sale of car parking. The Guidance Value notification issued by the Government of Karnataka specifically provides that the charges for car parking have to be mentioned separately in the conveyance deed and to be taken in computation for payment of stamp duty and registration charges. It is argued that the findings of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Nahal Chand Lalochand (supra) are therefore not applicable on the facts of this case. It is further submitted that there is no sale of parking space under ABA. It is only an exclusive right of use akin to the limited common area as defined under Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act and also as per the guidance value notification. It is further submitted that majority of complainants have already paid these charges. It is submitted that the opposite parties have raised these charges as per the agreement between the parties.

462.   Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties have argued that under clause 1.6 of the ABA, the complainants had agreed that the total cost of the flat is to be calculated on the basis of the super area based on the occupation certificate of the apartment. It is further argued that the permission of the allottee to increase the super area is required only when the total area is increased or decreased by 10%. It is submitted that it is not the case of the complainants that the increase of super area exceeds 10%. It is further submitted that no evidence had been led by the complainants to prove that there is no increase in the super area. It is further contended that they had never objected to the increase in the super area and majority of complainants have duly paid the charges for the increased area without any demur. It is further submitted that the contention of the complainants that since the saleable area has decreased therefore the super area has proportionately decreased, has no merit. It is submitted that the saleable area was decreased on account of reduction in the construction of 92 apartments and this reduction does not in any way affect the super area of individual apartment. It is further contended that the contention of the complainants that they are not required to lead any evidence or produce any proof in view of the admitted fact that saleable area has since decreased so automatically the super area of flat is also decreased, is misconceived and not tenable. It is submitted that increase in super area is evidenced from the fact that there is an addition to kitchen utility area for 2 bhk units; addition of balcony adjoining the master bedroom for 3 BHK + 2 toilet units; addition of 2 balconies in the 3 BHK + 3 toilet + servant units. Besides this, multiple AC ledges were added to all the aforesaid units and the service ledges were substantially enhanced in all the units and this fact is also clear from the building plan on the basis of which the occupation certificate was given. The original sanction plan of BBMP and the As-built plan on the basis of which occupation certificate has been issued, have been placed on record by the opposite parties. It is further submitted that the final apartment plan was also annexed alongwith registered conveyance deed of the units and it is submitted that the increase in the super area was for the benefit of the allottees and the allottees have been charged on the basis of booking rate only and no escalation charges have been claimed from them since the project was escalation free project. On these contentions it is submitted that the complainants are not entitled to the relief as prayed by them. It is further argued that as per clause 10 of ABA the prior permission of the allottee is required if there is increase or reduction in the super area more than 10%. It is submitted that in the cases of the allottees, the increase of super area is less than 10% and therefore their prior permission is not needed.