Stilt Parking Is Not Saleable Area; Promoter Cannot Separately Charge Homebuyer For Stilt Parking: TNREAT Upholds ₹2.36 Lakh Refund Against Arun Excello

 

M/s. Arun Excello Constructions LLP v. Meenakshi S.

Case: M/s. Arun Excello Constructions LLP v. Meenakshi S.
Case No.: Appeal No. 31 of 2026 & M.A. No. 95 of 2026
Forum: Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TNREAT)
Decision: 16 September 2026

Key issue: Whether a promoter can separately charge a homebuyer for a car-parking space situated in the stilt area of a residential project.

Facts: Meenakshi S. booked Flat No. 4419 in Block No. 4 of Arun Excello's Compact Homes – Narmada project at Singaperumal Koil, Chennai. An amount of ₹2.36 lakh was separately collected towards “Covered Parking (Including GST)” under the allotment letter. The homebuyer challenged the parking charge before TNRERA.

TNRERA directed Arun Excello to refund the ₹2.36 lakh with interest. The promoter appealed before TNREAT, contending, inter alia, that it had not sold any exclusive parking space and that the amount represented costs associated with the amenities/project.

Findings of TNREAT

TNREAT dismissed the promoter's appeal and upheld the refund. The Tribunal found that:

1. The allotment letter separately identified ₹2.36 lakh as the charge for covered parking.

2. The construction agreement did not include this amount as part of the construction cost.

3. The parking in question was situated in the stilt area.

4. A stilt parking space is not a separately saleable area, and therefore the promoter could not separately sell or charge the allottee for it.

The Tribunal relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., concerning the legal status of stilt parking.

Ratio

A promoter cannot separately sell or charge a homebuyer for a stilt parking space, since such parking is not a saleable area. Where the documentary record establishes that a separate amount was collected towards stilt parking, the amount is liable to be refunded with interest.

Practical significance

The decision reiterates the distinction between legitimate recovery of project/amenity costs and the sale of a specific stilt parking space. Merely describing the amount as an amenity or project-related charge will not protect the promoter where the allotment documentation demonstrates that a specific amount was separately collected towards covered/stilt parking.

TNREAT also permitted Meenakshi to withdraw the ₹3.88 lakh pre-deposit made by the promoter under Section 43(5) of RERA, together with accrued interest, if any. 

Builder Bound by Its Own Assurances of Earlier Possession; Cannot Rely on Distant Contractual Date: TNRERA

Builder Bound by Its Own Assurances of Earlier Possession; Cannot Rely on Distant Contractual Date: TNRERA

Case Title: Namasivayam v. Casa Grande Smart Values Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: R.C.P. No. 107 of 2025
Date of Decision: 3 September 2026

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA), comprising Chairperson K. Phanindra Reddy and Members A. Nazir Ahamed and Reeta Harish Thakkar, held that a promoter cannot rely solely upon a distant possession date stipulated in the agreement when it has subsequently made a specific commitment to hand over possession on an earlier date through its own communications.

The complainant had booked a villa in the Casagrand Divinity Project, Chengalpattu, for approximately ₹1.91 crore and had paid more than ₹1.58 crore in 2023, partly through a housing loan obtained from the State Bank of India. Although the agreement contemplated completion by April 2027, the promoter subsequently communicated to the complainant that possession would be handed over by December 2023, with a grace period extending up to March 2024.

The promoter subsequently extended the promised date to April 2024, citing floods, but cancelled the complainant's booking in February 2024 on the ground that certain dues remained unpaid. The promoter contended that April 2027 was the only binding contractual date and that its communications regarding earlier possession were merely tentative estimates. It further alleged that the complainant was himself in default and therefore could not claim compensation under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016.

TNRERA rejected this contention and observed that the complainant was entitled to rely upon the promoter's specific representations regarding the earlier date of handover. Significantly, the project obtained its Completion Certificate only in November 2024, demonstrating that possession could not have been delivered even by the subsequently promised date of April 2024.

The Authority accordingly held that the promoter's failure to honour its commitment attracted liability for delay and that the complainant was entitled to interest from March 2024 until actual handing over of possession in April 2026, pursuant to the earlier directions of the Authority.

The promoter was directed to pay interest at 10.90% per annum on the amount paid by the complainant, together with ₹25,000 towards litigation costs, within 30 days.

Key Takeaway: A promoter may be held to an earlier possession commitment communicated to the allottee, notwithstanding a later contractual possession date, particularly where the promoter's own subsequent conduct demonstrates that the earlier commitment could not be fulfilled.

 

TNRERA Cannot Adjudicate Disputed Questions of Title; Parties Must Approach Competent Civil Court: Madras High Court

Case Title: N. Balakrishnan v. Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Case No.: W.P. No. 32211 of 2026
Connected Applications: W.M.P. Nos. 35399 and 35401 of 2026
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

The Madras High Court has held that the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate disputed questions of title and that parties claiming competing rights over immovable property must approach the competent Civil Court for determination of such disputes.

The Court was considering a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by TNRERA concerning registration of a real estate project.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that although TNRERA is required to examine whether the promoter has the requisite legal title to the land at the stage of project registration, it cannot undertake a detailed adjudication of a genuinely disputed question of title. The Court held:

“However, it must be seen that when there are disputed questions of title, it is not for the TNRERA to go into the same and decide the issue itself. It is for the persons to approach the competent Civil Court.”

Factual Background

The petitioner claimed ownership over property situated in Thiruneermalai Village, asserting that the property had been purchased by his father. He also relied upon electricity, gas and telephone connections standing in respect of the property.

Meanwhile, the second respondent instituted a civil suit against the petitioner seeking a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the property. An interim injunction was also granted in favour of the second respondent.

According to the petitioner, although he had filed a counter in the civil proceedings, the matter remained pending for more than three years. The petitioner alleged that the second respondent had taken advantage of the ex parte interim injunction and applied to TNRERA for registration of a project proposed to be developed on the disputed property.

The petitioner consequently submitted an objection before the Chairperson of TNRERA, opposing registration of the project.

The petitioner had earlier sought information under the Right to Information Act, pursuant to which he was informed that no registration had been granted. However, he subsequently came to know that the project had been registered in favour of the second respondent.

Contentions of the Parties

The second respondent opposed the writ petition, asserting that he was the owner of the property and intended to develop it after obtaining the necessary permissions. It was submitted that the project had been duly registered with TNRERA in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The second respondent contended that TNRERA could not be called upon to adjudicate the title dispute raised by the petitioner.

Court's Reasoning

The High Court considered the requirements prescribed under Section 4(2)(l) of RERA, under which the promoter is required to make declarations regarding, inter alia, the promoter's legal title to the land and the absence of encumbrances.

The Court explained that TNRERA does have a statutory obligation to examine the promoter's declaration concerning title and encumbrances while considering an application for registration.

However, this regulatory scrutiny does not confer upon TNRERA the jurisdiction to finally adjudicate a contested question of ownership or title.

The Court observed that where, on the face of the record, the project proponent does not appear to possess legal title, or where the nature of an encumbrance is such that registration ought not to be granted, TNRERA may, depending upon the facts, refuse registration.

However, where the competing claims involve disputed questions of title requiring adjudication, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent Civil Court.

The Court held:

“With the said mandatory requirement in existence, if, prima facie, TNRERA is of view that the project proponent on the face of it does not qualify as somebody who is having title or that the nature of encumbrance is such that the registration cannot be granted, it may, in a given fact situation, reject the registration also.”

At the same time, the Court clarified:

“When there are disputed questions of title, it is not for the TNRERA to go into the same and decide the issue itself. It is for the persons to approach the competent Civil Court.”

Effect of Existing Civil Court Proceedings

An important factor considered by the High Court was that the dispute between the parties was already pending before the Civil Court and that an interim injunction had been granted in favour of the second respondent.

In those circumstances, the Court held that the matter did not warrant interference with the project registration merely because the petitioner asserted a competing claim to ownership.

The Court observed that mere registration of the project by TNRERA would not prejudice the petitioner's rights before the Civil Court. The petitioner remained entitled to pursue his claim of title and could even raise appropriate counter-claims or institute separate civil proceedings against the second respondent.

The Court stated:

“Mere grant of registration by the TNRERA will not prejudice the petitioner in any manner in canvassing its plea before the Civil Court or making even a counter-claim or filing even a suit as against the second respondent.”

Petitioner's Remedy Lies Before Civil Court

The High Court noted that in the earlier proceedings also, the petitioner had been relegated to the Civil Court for determination of his rights.

Accordingly, the Court left it open to the petitioner to raise the issue in the pending civil suit, including by filing an appropriate counter-petition, or to initiate separate civil proceedings concerning the property and the construction/project.

The Court further observed that, considering that the project had already been registered and that construction was at an advanced stage, it may not be appropriate for TNRERA to revoke the registration and reopen the title issue.

Decision

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, while preserving the petitioner's liberty to pursue his remedies before the competent Civil Court.

Key Takeaway

The decision draws an important distinction between regulatory scrutiny of title at the stage of project registration and judicial adjudication of a disputed title.

TNRERA is required to examine the promoter's statutory declarations concerning legal title and encumbrances under RERA. Where the promoter's lack of title is apparent on the face of the record, the Authority may take appropriate action, including refusal of registration.

However, where ownership itself is seriously disputed and requires evidence and adjudication, TNRERA cannot assume the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and conclusively determine the competing title claims. Such disputes must be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court.

The judgment also clarifies that registration of a project under RERA does not by itself confer or conclusively establish title over the underlying property, nor does it prevent a person claiming ownership from pursuing appropriate civil remedies.

Developers failing to transfer the benefits of GST reduction to homebuyers may end up compensating them with penalty in case the homebuyer withdraws from the project.

 In the Matter of Rajesh Vs. M/s Alliance Villa Pvt. Ltd Complaint no. 189 of 2019 decided on 22.11.2019 before Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority

• The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) directed a promoter to refund the booking amount with fine, after the latter refused to reduce the GST rate from 12% to 5%.

• The case relates to a complaint filed by Rajesh over booking a villa developed by Alliance Villa Pvt. Ltd at Thaiyur on Old Mahabalipuram Road (OMR) on the outskirts of the city. 

• The homebuyer entered an agreement with the developer for land and construction of a row villa in a project named ‘Alliance Humming Gardens‘ by paying Rs 4.18 lakh of the total villa price estimated as Rs 55.67 lakh. 

• While the agreement was entered with a GST rate of 12% at the time, the Centre revised the GST rate from 12% to 5%, two months later. 

• The complainant submitted to the realty regulator that the developer insisted he pay GST at old rates against the government notification, committing a breach of trust. Following this, the homebuyer withdrew from the project.

• As the developer did not refund the amount paid for booking the villa, the home buyer filed a complaint with the TNRERA. G Saravanan, adjudicating officer of TNRERA, said that for the ongoing projects, the promoter has an option to pay GST at old rates (12%), avail permissible input tax credit and pass on the benefit of the availed credit to homebuyers.

•  When the homebuyer questioned the developer, the latter stated that the 12% GST was compulsory, the order added. As per Section 19(1) of the RERA Act, the allottee has a right to all information regarding the villa intended to be purchased by him. 

• Taking all this into consideration, the adjudicating officer said the complainant was entitled for refund of the entire amount paid with an interest rate of 10.15%, besides Rs 25,000 and Rs 15,000 as compensation and for legal expenses.

If the Redevelopment project involves the Sale of flats to outside parties, then the builder becomes promoter under the act and the project is to be registered

 In the Matter of Indira Nagar Kaveri Apartments Owners Welfare Association v/s Navin Housing & Properties Pvt. Ltd. Complaint number 433/2019 ,

The Hon’ble Tamil Nadu  Real Estate Regulatory Authority observed that 

• an Agreement between existing flat owners and Builder intending to do redevelopment of the Society where the sale of flat to outside parties are also involved., “Very much constitute the standard joint development agreement for redevelopment  which is entered into between the existing flat owners and the promoter builder for demolition of the existing flats and construction of new flats in the said property. Therefore the day existing flat owners sign the deed of agreement with the promoter builder, the existing flat owners become an allottee and the respondent builder becomes the promoter under this act.”

• The Hon’ble Tribunal further added that it is the responsibility of the promoter to get the consent from the remaining flat owners to take up the redevelopment project.

• The Hon’ble Tribunal further declined to transfer the matter for arbitration adding that  “after the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) act, 2016 the real estate disputes and complaints will have to be adjudicated by the authority constituted under the act.” 

Land Owners can’t be Punished in Joint Ventures – Tamil Nadu RERA

 In a complaint filed by Shankari Sundararaman (“Complainant”) against Sree Vardhana Builders Private Limited (“Company”), 265 of 2020 its directors and landowners of the Project named ‘Vardhana Constellation’ in Coimbatore, for claiming refund of amounts paid towards the purchase of the flat under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“Act”), the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Chennai (“TNRERA”) stated that since directors are actively involved in the affairs of the Company and have received money and corresponded with the Complainant, they would be liable for violations under Section 69 the Act which deals with offences by companies and people responsible for the conduct/business of the company. 

However, with respect to landowners of the project site (being the other respondents), TNRERA stated that the landowners had just entered into joint venture agreements and had executed general power of attorney with the Company. The sale deeds for the undivided share of land was only executed by the Company and not the landowners. 

Further, it was stated that it was the Company that had launched the project and had entered into various agreements with the Complainant for construction and delivery of the constructed apartment on receiving consideration. 

Henceforth, the landowners would not come under the definition of “promoter” and only the Company would fall under the definition of “promoter” to be made liable for contravention under Section 31 read with Section 71 of the Act