The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has rejected a complaint by homebuyers of a Thane housing project seeking a ruling 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 the issue. “No provisions of the said Act provide this Authority with jurisdiction...
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has rejected a complaint by homebuyers of a Thane housing project seeking a ruling 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 the issue.
“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.,” the authority said in an order dated January 5, 2026.
The order was passed by Member Ravindra Deshpande.
The complaint was filed by Yuvraj Kisan Chaudhari and other homebuyers of “Krishna – B Wing” at Neelkanth Palms. The project has a common basement and stilt area, and 40 out of 163 flat owners were allotted puzzle parking in the common basement.
Puzzle parking is a mechanical parking system that uses automated vertical and horizontal platforms to stack vehicles, allowing higher parking capacity in limited space without driving lanes.
The homebuyers said they had paid proportionately towards common facilities and amenities under their sale agreements and sought a declaration that puzzle parking should be treated as part of common maintenance.
The dispute arose after the housing society took the position that puzzle parking maintenance should not be borne collectively. The homebuyers approached MahaRERA seeking a formal clarification under Section 2(n) of the RERA Act so that it could be placed before the society.
They argued that basements and parking areas are recognised as common areas under the Act and that puzzle parking, being located in the common basement, should be treated similarly.
The promoter opposed the complaint on the ground that ownership 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 is a common space, it submitted that the allotee-homebyers were, in effect, seeking an advisory ruling to address a dispute with the society, which was not a party to the proceedings.
On examining the definition of “common areas” under Section 2(n) of the Act, the authority observed that the provision expressly refers to basements and open parking spaces. However, it noted that the Act does not address mechanical parking systems such as puzzle parking.
MahaRERA also noted that there was no dispute between the homebuyers and the builder. “Admittedly, the present complaint has not been filed in pursuance of the dispute between the allottees and the Respondent-promoter with regards to parking but is for seeking decision on the question as to whether the Puzzle parking is common area or not.”, it said.
Since no violation by the developer was alleged, the authority held that the complaint was not maintainable under Section 31 of the Act. The authority directed the homebuyers to approach the appropriate forum for their grievance.
Case Title: Yuvraj Kisan Chaudhari & Ors. v. Neelkanth Palm Realty & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LLBiz RERA (MH) 8
Compliant Number: Complaint No. CC006000000196705
Appearances: Complainants in person; Adv. Anant Ratnaparkhi for Respondents
Click Here To Read/Download Order