![\"Homebuyer](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-134357624,imgsize-603950,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/parking-space-fight.jpg\" "\\"As")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nYour builder gives you parking space at the time of buying the house, but the housing society later changes rules. What happens then?In one such case, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court has protected the parking rights of two homebuyers after their housing society sought to take back the parking space allotted to them by the builder, citing its plan to introduce a new parking policy.<\/p>\n The dispute concerns a couple who bought a flat directly from the builder in Phase-1 of a housing project in 2009. At the time of purchase, they were allotted parking space No. GO\/26.After the housing society was formed, it decided to introduce a fresh parking policy within a year, citing the fact that the available parking area had become fully occupied. The Phase-1 society introduced a \u2018First come, First Served\u2019 system by relying on byelaw No. 78(a) and (b).As part of the process, the society asked all homebuyers to submit their parking allotment letters.Around the same time, for reasons that are not known, several homebuyers, including the couple, painted their respective parking spaces with their allotted numbers. The society subsequently issued them a letter seeking an explanation, according to an ET report.The matter then reached the trial court, which granted interim protection to the couple and directed that their parking space remain protected until the dispute was resolved. However, the underlying dispute turned out to be more complex.The Phase-1 society claimed that the area where the couple had been parking their car belonged to the society. The builder, however, took a different position, saying the space formed part of the open area of the building where it proposed to develop a recreation ground.Adding another layer to the dispute, the Phase-2 housing society in the same complex claimed that the area was among 18 parking spaces belonging to it rather than to the Phase-1 society.<\/p>\n The Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Court observed that, at the prima facie stage, the dispute appeared to involve the Phase-1 society, the Phase-2 society and the builder over the 18 parking spaces as well as the proposed recreation ground.The court observed: \u201cOpponent No.1 (Phase-1 Society) is claiming the said parking slots belonging to them; Phase-2 Society is claiming the same as their own. The opponent No.2 developer (builder) is claiming its right over the recreation ground.\u201dAs a result, the couple became embroiled in a larger dispute over the ownership and use of the parking area, leading to the court proceedings.In its interim judgement dated September 3, 2026, the Maharashtra Co-Operative Appellate Court protected the homebuyers parking rights. It also directed the Phase-1 society not to take any action affecting their parking space until the trial court determines whether the disputed area belongs to the society or forms part of the recreation area.The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court rejected the appeal filed by the Phase-1 housing society and, through its interim judgement dated September 3, 2026, continued protection for the couple\u2019s parking rights until the dispute is resolved.The court found that the documents presented before it left open the question of where the disputed parking space was actually located in terms of ownership and premises. It could potentially fall within the Phase-1 society, the Phase-2 society or neither. The Phase-1 society\u2019s own plan showed parking spaces, including GO\/26 allotted to the said homebuyers, in the area connected with the proposed Building No. 2, comprising Wings H and I.The court also considered the minutes maintained by the Phase-1 society itself, which recorded a dispute with the Phase-2 project concerning the parking spaces and the open area.It further noted that the Phase-1 Society, the developer and the Phase-2 society were each making competing claims over the open area, recreation ground and the 18 parking slots. Given these conflicting positions, the court said it could not determine at the interim stage that parking space GO\/26 belonged to the Phase-1 housing society.<\/p>\n Aradhana Bhansali, Senior Partner at Rajani Associates, told ET that the interim protection was granted to the homebuyer, who was a member of the Society, on several grounds. These are:The homebuyers produced the parking Allotment Letter dated May 14, 2008, under which the developer had allotted parking space No. GO\/26 to them in connection with their flat. The Society subsequently acknowledged this allotment as well.The minutes of the Society\u2019s General Body Meeting held on November 10, 2024, along with the correspondence exchanged between the parties, showed that a dispute continued to exist between the Society, the Developer and Veena Santoor Phase-2 Society over the 18 parking spaces, the gate and the recreation\/open area.The material placed before the court, including plans relied upon by the Society itself, indicated a prima-facie case that the disputed parking space formed part of the Phase-2 premises. This meant that the Phase-1 Society\u2019s authority to regulate the disputed parking area was itself a matter of dispute.Bhansali says: “In view of these circumstances, the Court found that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable prejudice favoured the homebuyers and accordingly confirmed the interim injunction.”However, the judgement only provides interim protection n relation to the parking space. It does not finally determine ownership or title over GO\/26, as the trial proceedings are still continuing.<\/div>\nWhat the case is about<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
What the court said<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
How did the homebuyers win interim protection?<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n