Appeal No. 11 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, for Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued Appeal No. 11 of 2020 on 10 February 2020 in the dispute between homebuyer T. Aananthi, G.K.S. Technology Park Limited and two other respondents. The appeal reviews the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's directions concerning registration of a VIHA apartment, delayed payment interest and a disputed covered car parking space. The supplied extract does not contain the Tribunal's final decision on the appeal.
What the case concerns
Appeal No. 11 of 2020 before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal concerns apartment D101 in the VIHA project at VOC New Colony, Chennai. Homebuyer T. Aananthi appealed against the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order in C.No.411 of 2019, dated 7 November 2019.
The buyer had entered into sale and construction agreements with G.K.S. Technology Park Limited on 11 November 2016. The transaction covered 1226.96 square feet of built up area and one reserved covered car park. A tripartite loan agreement was also entered into with the State Bank of India.
Who may find it relevant
The proceedings are relevant to:
- Apartment buyers disputing the location or allocation of a promised car park.
- Promoters seeking delayed payment interest from buyers.
- Buyers seeking registration after paying the sale consideration.
- Later purchasers occupying a parking space claimed by an earlier allottee.
Authority's earlier directions
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority directed the first and second respondents to execute the sale deed. The Tribunal recorded that the promoter had not appealed against that direction and that it had therefore become final.
The Authority also:
- Considered the buyer's delay in following the payment schedule.
- Fixed interest payable for the buyer's payment delay at 5.5 per cent instead of 10.2 per cent.
- Rejected the claim to a particular car park because the buyer had not produced documents identifying that exact space.
- Rejected the related request to restrain the third respondent from using the disputed space.
Main parking dispute
T. Aananthi argued that her construction agreement linked flat D101 with one reserved covered car park on the ground level. She claimed this meant a space beneath or near her apartment.
The third respondent purchased flat D103 under a registered sale deed dated 27 March 2018 and stated that a reserved space had been allotted to him. The buyer argued that the parking plan referred to in his sale deed was not appended to it and that no exact space was identified there.
The supplied text ends while recording the buyer's arguments about the number of parking spaces. It does not include the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's final findings or disposition of the appeal.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Did the Tribunal require the developer to register apartment D101?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority had directed the first and second respondents to execute the sale deed. The Tribunal recorded that the promoter did not appeal that direction, so it had become final.
Was T. Aananthi awarded the specific car parking space she claimed?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority rejected that claim for lack of documents identifying the exact parking space. The supplied extract does not include the Appellate Tribunal's final decision on that issue.
Why did the third respondent claim the disputed parking space?
The third respondent stated that he purchased flat D103 by a registered sale deed dated 27 March 2018, received a reserved car park and had used it from the date of registration.
What interest rate did the Regulatory Authority apply to the buyer's delayed payments?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority fixed the interest payable for the buyer's payment delay at 5.5 per cent instead of 10.2 per cent.
