Homebuyer caught in builder-housing society parking fight wins relief: Know what Maharashtra court ruled

The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court has upheld the parking rights of two homebuyers after their housing society took away their parking space, claiming it was allocated by the builder and that they wanted to implement a new parking policy.

This situation involved Mr and Mrs Mahey from Borivali (West), who purchased a flat in Phase-1 of a housing project directly from the builder in 2009 and were allotted parking no.GO/26. However, after the housing society was formed, they decided to frame a new parking policy within a year due to the parking area being fully occupied. The Phase-1 housing society introduces a parking policy called ‘First come, First Served’ by adhering to its byelaw No.78(a) and (b).

To facilitate this, the housing society requested parking allotment letters from all the homebuyers. In the meantime, for reasons unknown, some homebuyers, including Mr and Mrs Mahey, painted their parking spot with their number. Consequently, the housing society sent them a letter asking for an explanation.


At that time, the trial court intervened and issued an interim protection order for Mr and Mrs Mahey’s parking space until the issue was solved. The situation is more complicated than it seems.

The housing society argued that the place where Mr and Mrs Mahey parked their car is the society’s spot. However, the builder claimed that this parking space was part of the building’s open space where they wished to build a recreation ground. Meanwhile, the Phase-2 housing society of the same housing complex asserted that this was one of the 18 parking spots belonging to their society, not to Mr and Mrs Mahey’s society.

The Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Court noted that prima facie it seemed that there was a dispute between the Phase-1 society, Phase-2 society and the builder regarding 18 parking slots and the recreation ground.

The court observed: “Opponent 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.”

That is how Mr and Mrs Mahey got caught in the parking dispute and so there was a court case. The Maharashtra Co-Operative Appellate Court in its September 3, 2026 interim judgement protected Mr and Mrs Mahey’s parking rights and ordered the phase-1 society not to act on this until the trial court decided who owned this particular disputed parking area or recreation area.

Also read: Parking dispute turns costly: Homebuyer loses court case after neighbour occupies his parking space with second car, here's why

How did the residedent win interim protection?

Aradhana Bhansali, Senior Partner at Rajani Associates, said to ET Wealth Online: The interim protection was granted to the homebuyer, the member of the Society on the following amongst other grounds:

• The homebuyers relied on the parking Allotment Letter dated May 14, 2008, under which parking space No. GO/26 was allotted to them by the developer in connection with their flat no.C-111. The allotment was also subsequently recognised by the Society.
• The Society General Body Meeting minutes dated November 10, 2024, read with the correspondence exchanged between the parties, evidenced a subsisting dispute between the Society, the Developer and Veena Santoor Phase-2 Society concerning the 18 parking spaces, the gate and the recreation/open area.
• The documents on record, including the Society’s own plans which were relied, raised a prima-facie case that the disputed the car parking space formed part of the Phase-2 premises. Consequently, the Society’s authority to regulate the disputed parking space was itself contentious.

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."

Also read: Senior citizen fined for parking in open space wins relief; Maharashtra court orders housing society to allot a convenient parking spot

Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court discussion

The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court dismissed the Phase-1 housing society’s appeal and passed an interim judgement on September 3, 2026, protecting Mr and Mrs Mahey’s parking rights until the issue is sorted.

The court found that the documents on record raised questions about whether the disputed parking space actually fell within the premises of the Phase-1 housing society or Phase-2 or nobody in particular. The Phase-1 housing society's own plan showed parking spaces, including GO/26 (Mr and Mrs Mahey’s), in the area associated with the proposed Building No. 2 comprising Wings H and I.

The court also took note of the Phase-1 housing society's own minutes recording a dispute with the Phase-2 project over parking spaces and the open area.

The court further noted that the Phase-1 Society, the developer and the Phase-2 society had conflicting claims concerning the open area, recreation ground and 18 parking slots. Under these circumstances, the court held that it could not, at the interim stage, conclude that GO/26 belonged to the phase-1 housing society.

The court therefore found a prima facie case in favour of the Maheys and held that the balance of convenience lay in their favour. The court also observed that denying them protection could cause irreparable loss.

The appeal was consequently dismissed with costs, and the interim order restraining the society from interfering with Maheys' use of parking space GO/26 or obstructing access to it was confirmed.

The September 3, 2026, judgement is an interim protection for the parking space of Maheys. The court has not finally decided ownership or title over the parking space as the trial continues.