MUMBAI: No flat owner is normally eligible for more than one stilt or open parking space on housing society premises unless there is a vacant spot or another member does not want it, the Bombay high court has said. Justice Ramesh Dhanuka said that such vacant space will be allotted on a "year-to-year basis" to flat owners who want additional parking lots.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a Bandra housing society challenging a cooperative court directive to create additional parking space for a new member’s car. Justice Dhanuka struck down the interim order and asked the society to decide the issue of whether the member was entitled to parking space on the premises within a year.
"A perusal of bylaw indicates that a member having a motor vehicle will be eligible to have stilt or open parking space. No member shall normally be eligible for being allotted more than one stilt or parking space for parking car,” said Justice Dhanuka. The judge referred to a bylaw and said the “question of allotment of two car parking spaces would arise only if any member of the society who has not been allotted even a single stilt or parking space does not require such car parking. In that event, the only manner in which additional car parking can be allotted is by allotting car parking on a year-to-year basis".
The petition was filed by Royal Manor housing society in Bandra, which was constructed in 2004. The society, with 20 members, had 19 stilt and five open parking spaces. The builder allotted the parking spaces to 19 flat members, including five who got additional space to park their vehicles. A new member who bought a flat in 2012 applied for a parking space, but this was rejected by the society on the grounds that the original member who had sold the apartment was not allotted any parking. In 2015, in an interim order the cooperative court ordered the society to create an additional parking space for the new member. The society challenged this order on the grounds that it did not have any additional space and such an interim order could not have been granted.
The high court agreed that the interim order could not have been passed. "The (new flat owners) in my view, had not demonstrated any extraordinary circumstances for grant of such mandatory interim injunction by creating an additional car parking when all 24 car parking spaces are already allotted without rendering any finding that the double car parking spaces allotted to some of the members were in violation of bylaw of the petitioner society,” said the high court.