Housing Societies' Challanges

 Parking on Paper Is Not Parking in Practice: MahaRERA’s Firm Stand on Usable Parking

 One of the most persistent and frustrating issues faced by apartment owners across urban India is parking. Buyers pay substantial amounts for covered parking, only to discover later that the allotted slot exists merely on paper—locked inside an unfinished structure, located far from the residential block, or rendered practically unusable.

In a recent and significant ruling, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has put a decisive stop to this practice by clearly holding that paper allotment of a parking slot is not sufficient. What matters is whether the parking space is actually usable and reasonably accessible.

 

What the MahaRERA Order Explicitly States

In its order, MahaRERA made the following observation, which directly addresses the core issue faced by homebuyers:

“The developer is under an obligation to provide a usable covered car parking space once consideration for the same has been collected. Mere paper allotment of a parking slot in a building which is under construction and not available for actual use cannot be treated as proper allotment of the promised parking facility.”

This extract goes to the heart of the issue. It draws a clear legal distinction between:

• Documentary allotment, and
• Actual delivery of a functional amenity

The Case Behind the Ruling

The order arose from a complaint filed by a homebuyer in a Pune residential project. While possession of the apartment was given, the buyer’s allotted covered parking space was located inside a structure that was still under construction and completely inaccessible. As a temporary measure, the developer assigned parking in an open area in a different building.

The homebuyer argued that this arrangement defeated the very purpose of purchasing covered parking. MahaRERA agreed and directed the developer to provide a “reasonably accessible” alternate parking space within three months, until the originally promised slot becomes usable. [maharera.m...tra.gov.in]

Developer’s Defence—and MahaRERA’s Rejection

The developer contended that:

• In large integrated townships, parking cannot always be allotted close to the buyer’s block, and
• Parking was allotted strictly based on an internal seniority list.

MahaRERA was not persuaded. While acknowledging planning constraints, the authority made it clear that internal allocation methods or construction phasing cannot override buyer rights once payment has been collected. [maharera.m...tra.gov.in]

Why This Order Is Important

This ruling is significant for several reasons:

1. Usability is now the test, not paperwork:

Parking must be available for actual use, not just mentioned in agreements or allotment letters.

2. Consideration collected = obligation triggered:

Once money is taken for parking, the obligation to deliver a usable space arises immediately.

3. A strong precedent for buyers and associations:

Buyers no longer have to passively accept excuses such as “future readiness” or “temporary arrangements” for essential amenities.

4. Consistency with earlier MahaRERA parking orders:

The reasoning aligns closely with MahaRERA Order No. 54/2024, which mandates clear disclosure of parking location, size, and type in sale documents.

Relevance Beyond Maharashtra

Although this is a MahaRERA order, its reasoning carries wider relevance. Similar parking disputes are common in other states, including Tamil Nadu, where basement and stilt parking issues often surface after possession.

RERA authorities elsewhere may rely on this reasoning as persuasive precedent, reinforcing the principle that amenities charged for must be delivered in usable form at the time of possession or through a real alternative, not a promise.

Conclusion

MahaRERA’s order reinforces a simple but powerful principle:

Real estate commitments must translate into real‑world utility, not paper assurances.

For homebuyers, this ruling provides clarity and confidence. For developers, it serves as a reminder that compliance is measured not by documents alone, but by what buyers can actually use on the ground. 

Disclaimer

This article is written for general informational and educational purposes only. The views expressed herein are based on publicly reported judicial and regulatory developments and reflect the author’s understanding and interpretation of the same.

The extract quoted from the MahaRERA order is drawn from media reports and secondary sources, as the certified copy of the case‑specific order is not publicly accessible at the time of writing. Readers are advised not to treat this article as legal advice or a substitute for professional consultation.

The author makes no representation regarding the facts of any specific project or dispute and does not intend to comment on or impute motives to any particular developer, individual, or entity. Laws, regulations, and regulatory interpretations are subject to change, and readers should verify the current position with official sources or consult a qualified legal professional before acting on any information contained herein.