Karnataka REAT Directs Builder To Provide Car Parking Space Without Charging Extra Money

The Tribunal rejected the builder's contention that they had mistakenly mentioned providing the car parking space in the sale agreement.

Background Facts

Homebuyer (Complainant) booked a flat in the builder's (Respondent) project named Prestige Bagamane Temple Bells for Rs. 28,44,720/-

As per booking confirmation letter dated 05.01.2015, builder promised to provide a car parking space. Further, both builder and homebuyer entered into the agreement for sale on the same day.

Despite receiving the full consideration the builder failed to provide the promised parking space. Instead the builder demanded an additional Rs. 2,50,000/- from the homebuyer for the parking space.

Aggrieved, the homebuyer filed a complaint before the Authority seeking a directive for the builder to provide the parking space without demanding extra payment.

Authority through its order dated 17.10.2022 directed the builder to allot the parking space without charging the additional amount. Dissatisfied by Authority order builder filed appeal before the Tribunal.

Observation and Direction by Tribunal

Tribunal noted that although Schedule C of the sale deed does not mention the car parking space, clauses 5 under title Possession and Clause 7 of Schedule E clearly indicate that a car parking space was allotted to the homebuyer

Therefore, based on that Tribunal held that it is evident that the total sale consideration of Rs. 28,44,720/- for the one BHK apartment described in ScheduleC includes the amount for the parking area.

The authority held that even if the builder did not intend to sell the car parking slot along with the flat for a total consideration of Rs. 28,44,720/- there was no reason to include the clause in Schedule E of the registered sale deed.

Lastly, the Tribunal held that the builder's claim that the information about the car parking slot in the Sale Agreement, Construction Agreement and Sale Deed were typographical or clerical mistakes is a blatant lie. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the builder's appeal.

Case – Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. Versus Mr. Venkatesh S. Arbatti & others

Citation – APPEAL NO. (K-REAT) 05/2023

Date of order – 29.10.24