The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has rejected a complaint filed by homebuyers of a Thane housing project seeking a determination on whether puzzle parking qualifies as a “common area” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, holding that it has no jurisdiction to decide such a question. The Authority observed that in the absence of any specific provision empowering it to classify a particular amenity as a common area, it must refrain from passing any order on the issue.
The order dated 5 January 2026 was passed by Ravindra Deshpande, Member-II, MahaRERA. The complaint had been filed by Yuvraj Kisan Chaudhari and other homebuyers of “Krishna – B Wing”, a residential project forming part of Neelkanth Palms in Thane. The project consists of 163 flats with a common basement, upper and lower ground levels, and stilt parking, out of which 40 flat owners were allotted puzzle parking spaces in the common basement.
Puzzle parking is a mechanical parking system using automated vertical and horizontal platforms to stack vehicles, allowing multiple cars to be parked in limited space. The complainants contended that since puzzle parking was located in the common basement and they had paid proportionate amounts towards common areas and amenities under their agreements for sale, the maintenance of puzzle parking should be treated as part of common maintenance.
The dispute arose after the housing society took the position that maintenance expenses for puzzle parking should be borne only by the 40 allottees who were allotted such parking, and not collectively by all members. The complainants approached MahaRERA seeking a declaration under Section 2(n) of the RERA Act that puzzle parking falls within the definition of “common areas”, so that the same could be placed before the society for resolution of the dispute.
The complainants argued that Section 2(n) of the Act expressly includes basements and parking areas within the definition of common areas. According to them, since puzzle parking is situated in the common basement, it ought to be treated as a common area, and its maintenance cost should be shared by all members of the society. They also relied on clauses in their agreements for sale which referred to allotment of puzzle parking along with proportionate price of common areas and facilities appurtenant to the flat.
The promoter opposed the complaint, contending that ownership and control of the project and its common areas had already been handed over to the housing society in 2020. While the promoter did not dispute that puzzle parking was located in the common basement, it submitted that the complainants were effectively seeking an advisory or declaratory ruling to resolve a dispute with the society, which was not even impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The promoter further pointed out that there was no subsisting dispute between the complainants and the developer.
On examining the statutory framework, MahaRERA noted that Section 2(n) of the Act defines “common areas” and specifically refers to common basements, open parking areas, and other shared facilities. However, the Authority observed that the Act does not specifically deal with mechanical parking systems such as puzzle parking. It further recorded that the present complaint was not filed alleging any violation or contravention of the Act by the promoter.
The Authority emphasised that a complaint under Section 31 of the Act is maintainable only where there is an allegation of violation of the provisions of the Act, rules, or regulations by a promoter, allottee, or real estate agent. In the present case, MahaRERA noted that the complainants had themselves admitted that there was no dispute with the promoter and that the complaint was filed solely to seek a decision on whether puzzle parking constitutes a common area.
Holding that no provision of the RERA Act confers jurisdiction on MahaRERA to decide whether a particular amenity qualifies as a common area in the abstract, the Authority observed: “No provisions of the said Act provide this Authority with jurisdiction to decide a particular amenity as common or not. In the absence of the jurisdiction, this Authority restrains itself from passing any order in this behalf.” Accordingly, MahaRERA held that the complaint was not maintainable and rejected it, granting liberty to the homebuyers to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance against the housing society. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Title: Yuvraj Kisan Chaudhari & Ors. v. Neelkanth Palm Realty & Anr.
