Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Appeal No.35 of 2022
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, issued the order in Appeal No.35 of 2022 on 16 September 2022, dismissing K. Leslie Jose David's appeal against M/s. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Private Limited at the admission stage. The appeal concerned the promoter's failure to provide two covered car parking spaces at Casagrand Bellissimo, but the Tribunal found that the Regulatory Authority's earlier order had neither granted nor denied the appellant relief and had not affected his rights or interests.
What the appeal concerned
Appeal No.35 of 2022 arose from a complaint by K. Leslie Jose David, an allottee in the Casagrand Bellissimo project, against M/s. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Private Limited. The allottee claimed that the construction agreement provided for two covered car parking spaces, while the promoter allotted one covered space and one open area parking space.
The promoter stated that it could not provide two covered parking spaces because there was a shortage of covered parking area. The allottee appealed against the Regulatory Authority's order in C.No.197 of 2021, dated 27 April 2022.
Related Residents' Association complaint
The Residents' Association, represented by its General Secretary, N. Soundararaj, had separately filed C.No.202 of 2021 against the same promoter. That complaint requested 11 forms of relief, including relief concerning car parking.
The Regulatory Authority decided both complaints on 27 April 2022 through separate orders. In the Residents' Association complaint, it issued directions to the promoter concerning car parking. The Tribunal recorded that K. Leslie Jose David was an active member of the association and knew about its complaint. The association had not appealed against its order at the time of the Tribunal proceedings.
Why the appeal was dismissed
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, found that the Regulatory Authority had neither granted nor denied relief in K. Leslie Jose David's individual complaint. Instead, the Regulatory Authority allowed him to wait for the outcome of the promoter's parking allotment process and, if the construction agreement was not complied with, seek a refund and any compensation through the appropriate forums within the Authority.
The Tribunal held that the appellant's rights and interests were not affected by the challenged order. It also observed that he had not included the Residents' Association as a respondent in his individual complaint, although the association was pursuing the parking issue for its members.
Practical effect
The Tribunal dismissed Appeal No.35 of 2022 at the admission stage and closed any connected miscellaneous applications. It stated that K. Leslie Jose David could pursue relief through the Residents' Association if he wished. The dismissal did not decide that he was entitled to two covered parking spaces or determine a refund or compensation amount.
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 order the promoter to provide two covered car parking spaces?
No. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal at the admission stage and did not direct M/s. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Private Limited to provide two covered spaces.
Can the allottee still seek a refund if two covered parking spaces are not provided?
The Regulatory Authority allowed the allottee to wait for the final outcome of the parking allotment process and then claim a refund if the construction agreement was not complied with. It also referred any compensation claim to the Adjudicating Officer of the Authority.
Why was the Residents' Association complaint important?
The Residents' Association had already raised the car parking issue for its members in C.No.202 of 2021, and the Regulatory Authority had issued parking-related directions in that case. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was an active association member and could pursue relief through the association.
Did the Tribunal find that the appellant had lost his rights?
No. The Tribunal found that the Regulatory Authority's order had neither granted nor denied relief and had not affected the appellant's rights or interests.
