Appeal No. 89 of 2021, M/s. Harmony Avakash Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. Ville Franche Home Owners Association
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal issued Appeal No. 89 of 2021 on 14 February 2022 concerning ownership, access and charges for common facilities at a residential villa project promoted by M/s. Harmony Avakash Homes Private Limited. The Tribunal found that the construction agreement treated the promoter as owner of facilities including the clubhouse, restaurant and sports complex, while home buyers could use them on payment of charges to be mutually agreed. The supplied text does not include the concluding portion stating whether the appeal was finally allowed or dismissed.
What the appeal concerns
Appeal No. 89 of 2021 was filed by M/s. Harmony Avakash Homes Private Limited against Ville Franche Home Owners Association. It challenged a Regulatory Authority order dated 10 June 2021 concerning project registration, common amenity land, facilities and related obligations.
The Regulatory Authority had found that the project was not registrable after considering the completion status of the Phase I villas and promised amenities. It nevertheless directed the promoter to execute a registered conveyance deed for land containing certain common amenities, address discrepancies with the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, and comply with directions concerning amenities.
Who may be affected
The proceedings are relevant to:
- Owners and allottees in the residential villa project.
- Ville Franche Home Owners Association.
- M/s. Harmony Avakash Homes Private Limited as promoter.
- Buyers assessing whether advertised facilities are association property or remain promoter-owned.
Key findings in the supplied text
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered the brochure and construction agreement. The documents listed common area services separately from facilities owned and possessed by the promoter.
- Annexure II covered common facilities and services such as parking, the compound wall, landscaping, water and sewage treatment plants, backup generation, street lighting, security, housekeeping and an ambulance.
- Annexure III identified promoter-owned facilities including the multipurpose clubhouse, office room, restaurant, kitchen facilities, swimming pool, gym, Jacuzzi and games areas.
- The construction agreement stated that the promoter would manage and maintain the listed amenities and facilities against annual maintenance charges.
- The Tribunal recorded that the promoter owned the clubhouse, restaurant and related facilities.
- Home buyers were entitled to use the clubhouse, restaurant and swimming pool on payment of appropriate usage charges.
- The promoter was required to provide the facilities it had promised, including those advertised in the brochure.
- The Tribunal did not fix the amount of usage charges. It said the promoter and home buyers should mutually agree on the charges, preferably with assistance from a valuer.
Limit of the available text
The supplied extract ends during the Tribunal's discussion of usage fees. It does not contain the final operative conclusion confirming whether Appeal No. 89 of 2021 was allowed, partly allowed or dismissed.
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
Does the homeowners association own the clubhouse and swimming pool?
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recorded that the construction agreement treated the promoter as owner of the clubhouse, restaurant, swimming pool and other Annexure III facilities.
Can residents use the promoter-owned facilities?
Yes. The Tribunal stated that home buyers could use facilities such as the clubhouse, restaurant and swimming pool on payment of appropriate usage charges.
Did the Tribunal set the maintenance or usage fee?
No. The Tribunal said it could not fix the usage fee and that the parties should agree on it mutually, preferably with the assistance of a valuer.
Was the promoter's appeal allowed?
The supplied text does not include the final part of the decision, so it does not show whether Appeal No. 89 of 2021 was ultimately allowed, partly allowed or dismissed.
