Homebuyers lose stilt parking case: Maharashtra court explains why builder's allotment was invalid

Recently, five homebuyers from Navi Mumbai, India lost their stilt parking spaces as it was allotted to them by the builder after their housing society was already registered. The dispute had initially started as this housing society wanted to put the parking spaces on rent but it was already being used by these homebuyers. With this dispute the aggrieved homebuyers went to court.

Justice Smt. S. Neelkanth of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, after hearing the aggrieved homebuyer's case ruled in favour of the housing society and said the flat buyers cannot claim exclusive rights over the stilt parking slots just because the builder had issued them letters of allotment. Once a housing society is registered, the parking spaces come under the society's control.

Justice Smt S. Neelkanth referred to a Supreme Court judgement in the case of Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 536. 20 where the Supreme Court has very clearly said that a builder has no right to sell any portion of a building which is not a "flat" within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) and the entire land and building has to be conveyed to the organization and the only right which remains with the promoter is to sell unsold flats. It is, thus, clear that the builder has no right to sell "stilt parking spaces" as these are neither "flats" nor appurtenants or attachments to "flat(s)"."


The Maharashtra Co-op Appellate Court thus said that since it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Nahalchand case that the stilt parking spaces are part of the common areas and belong to the Society, the builder can't sell them.

(Case no: CNR No.MHCA010002192025, dated July 18, 2026)

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

A brief background of the aggrieved homebuyers who got the said stilt parking spaces

The builder finalized the sale agreement with the society on December 24, 2019. This housing complex located in Navi Mumbai features 183 residential units, 38 commercial shops and 93 parking slots. Out of the 93 parking spaces, 22 are open parking spaces and 71 are stilt parking spaces. Before the society was registered, the builder sold 178 residential units and the remaining 5 units were sold after the society was registered.

To clarify, after the society was registered, the builder allocated the remaining five residential units and the corresponding five parking spaces to the five homebuyers. This led to a dispute between these homebuyers and the housing society. Moreover, on December 19, 2021, a resolution was passed in the Annual General Body Meeting of the society, approving the leasing of two disputed stilt parking spaces on an annual rental basis.

The aggrieved homebuyers told the court that the builder had retained possession of unsold flats and that the parking spaces in question were allotted to them after they bought those unsold flats.

The aggrieved homebuyers pointed out that other flat buyers were using the parking spaces as allotted by the developer and the Society hasn't interfered with those assignments.

They also mentioned that since the conveyance deed has not been executed in favour of the Society, it can't claim ownership of the parking slots allocated to them. Additionally, the homebuyers noted that the managing committee of the Society has not prepared rules for allocation of parking spaces according to the approved bye-laws.

On the other hand, the Society argued that once a Co-operative Housing Society is registered, it gains exclusive management, administration and control over all common areas and amenities. The builder ceases to have any independent authority to deal with or create rights in respect of such common facilities, except to the extent specifically permitted by law.

The Society further explained that parking spaces, whether they are open, stilt, or otherwise part of the common areas, are common amenities meant for the collective use and benefit of the members of the Society. They emphasized that once the Society is set up and registered, the builder loses all control over the common facilities and cannot continue to exercise proprietary or managerial rights over them.

Also read: Can housing societies charge separately for facilities like gyms or swimming pools in addition to maintenance fees? Know what the law says

Why did the homebuyers lose the case?

Abhiraj Gandhi, Partner at Khaitan & Co, said to ET Wealth Online that the homebuyers lost primarily because the developer’s allotment letters could not give them a legal right to exclusively own or claim the stilt parking spaces.

It is important to note that the Appellate Court has not finally decided the ownership or allocation of the parking spaces. It has only held that, at the interim stage, the purchasers failed to establish a prima facie right entitling them to an injunction against the Society.

Gandhi explains:

• Stilt parking is a common area, not an independently saleable property:

The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [(2010) 9 SCC 536] and reiterated that stilt parking space is neither a "flat" nor a "garage". It is part of the common areas of the building and therefore cannot be sold separately by the promoter.

Therefore, even if the developer issued an allotment letter identifying a particular stilt parking space for a purchaser, the developer could not create a proprietary or exclusive right over that space contrary to law.

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

• The homebuyers relied only on the developer’s allotment letters

For the purpose of establishing a prima facie case, the purchasers principally relied upon the parking allotment letters issued by the developer. The Appellate Court held that these allotment letters, by themselves, were insufficient to establish any enforceable exclusive right over the stilt parking spaces.

Gandhi says that the Court noted that these letters themselves contained conditions, including that the parking space could not be sold or transferred to outsiders and that the purchaser would have to pay parking charges that could subsequently be levied by the Society.

Significantly, the allotment letters themselves provided that the purchasers would be liable to pay parking charges that may be levied by the Society after possession of the building was handed over. This itself recognised that the Society would ultimately regulate the use of the parking spaces.

Upon registration of the Society, the management, administration and control of the common areas vested in the Society. The developer ceased to have any legal authority to create fresh rights in respect of common facilities, including parking spaces. Any allotment for parking made thereafter did not confer any enforceable exclusive right upon the purchaser.

What happens to the homebuyers who have lost their parking spaces?

Gandhi says that as matters presently stand following the Appellate Court's order, the homebuyers cannot rely solely upon the developer's allotment letters to claim an exclusive right over the stilt parking spaces.

Gandhi says that in the present case, the Court noted that the Society had passed a General Body resolution deciding that the remaining parking spaces would be allotted on an annual rental basis. The Court observed that such a decision was binding upon all members of the Society.

The judgment does not record that the purchasers paid any separate consideration specifically towards the parking spaces. Consequently, the Appellate Court did not consider or decide any issue regarding refund of money.

According to Gandhi, the dispute before the Court was confined to whether the developer's parking allotment letters entitled the purchasers to an interim injunction against the Society.

Gandhi says that the judgment reinforces that a promoter cannot, after registration of the housing society, create exclusive rights over common parking areas merely by issuing allotment letters. A purchaser seeking to enforce such rights must establish a legal entitlement recognised under law and not merely rely upon the developer's unilateral allocation of a stilt parking space.

Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court order

The court said that the aggrieved homebuyers have only relied upon 'allotment letters' issued to them by the builder to make a prima facie case in their favour, and nothing else.

The court said that since, it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nahalchand case that the stilt parking spaces are part of the common areas and belong to the Society, the court is of the considered view that the aggrieved homebuyers have failed to make a prima facie case in their favour on the basis of allotment letters issued to them.

Thus, considering the above, as no prima facie case is made out by the homebuyers, there is no question of balance of convenience lying in their favour. Thus the court ruled against the aggrieved homebuyers and in favour of the Society.