In a significant order that clarifies the legality of parking allotment across different phases of the same layout, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed 26 complaints filed by homebuyers against Linux Group, the promoter of the project “iOS Tathawade” (MahaRERA Registration No. P52100027952) at Tathawade, Mulshi, Pune.
The common order, pronounced on July 1, 2026 by Member Mahesh Pathak, rejected all reliefs sought by the allottees, including directions for parking strictly within the same building, completion of amenities, rectification of alleged defects, and compensation.
What the Homebuyers Alleged
The 26 complainants, who had booked flats in iOS Tathawade and taken possession after the Occupancy Certificate (OC) was issued on August 30, 2024, raised three main grievances:
- Parking Issue: Their Agreements for Sale (AFS) promised one covered car parking space. Initially, the promoter had proposed hydraulic parking. Later, parking was allotted through a lottery system, with several spaces given in the neighbouring building “iOS Prime” (MahaRERA No. P52100053819). The allottees alleged that this allotment was unilateral, the spaces in iOS Prime were not ready or usable, access was inadequate, and it violated the AFS as well as Sections 11 and 14 of RERA.
- Amenities: Promised amenities such as gymnasium and landscaping were either incomplete or not provided as per sanctioned plans.
- Construction Defects: Issues like water leakage, cracked tiles, wall cracks, unfinished work, and problems related to the STP facility.
They sought directions for proper parking as per sanctioned plans, fresh transparent allotment, completion of amenities, defect rectification, and compensation.
Promoter’s Defence
Linux Group submitted that:
- The original plan was hydraulic parking within iOS Tathawade.
- Allottees, during a meeting on January 12, 2025, opposed hydraulic parking due to practical difficulties and requested conventional parking.
- Minutes of the meeting were circulated; allottees participated and did not object.
- Parking was allotted transparently through a lottery system in the presence of allottees (supported by videos, photographs, emails, and attendance records submitted to MahaRERA).
- iOS Tathawade and iOS Prime form part of the same larger layout with common infrastructure and phased development. Consent letters from allottees for phase-wise development were placed on record.
- Possession was handed over only after OC. The promoter expressed willingness to install hydraulic parking within six months in iOS Tathawade if any allottee was unwilling to accept the current arrangement.
MahaRERA’s Key Observations and Ruling
After examining replies, rejoinders, written submissions, and evidence, MahaRERA made the following important observations:
On Parking (the central issue): MahaRERA held that the AFS only mentioned “one covered car parking” without specifying any particular location, floor, or building. The Authority accepted the promoter’s evidence of the January 12, 2025 meeting and the subsequent lottery process. It noted that complainants failed to produce cogent proof that the lottery was manipulated or that the allotted spaces were unusable.
Crucially, MahaRERA ruled that parking allotted in the adjacent building (iOS Prime) is legal. It observed that both projects form part of a common and single sanctioned layout being developed in phases with shared infrastructure. The Authority explicitly stated that merely because the two phases have separate MahaRERA registration numbers does not make the allotment illegal. It further held that allotting some parking spaces in the adjoining building forming part of the same layout does not amount to a breach of the Agreement for Sale.
MahaRERA also took note of a previous common order dated December 15, 2025, in similar complaints against the same promoter and observed that the promoter had substantially complied by allotting parking spaces.
On Amenities and Defects: The Authority found that complainants made only general allegations without producing expert reports, structural audit reports, or cogent documentary proof. It noted that the project had received OC and that many grievances related to post-possession maintenance, which falls under the jurisdiction of the society and other competent authorities rather than MahaRERA under Section 14(3) of RERA.
Final Order
All 26 complaints stand dismissed for want of merits. All reliefs sought regarding parking, amenities, defects, compensation, and costs were rejected. The promoter’s undertaking to provide hydraulic parking within six months (if any allottee does not accept the current arrangement) has been taken on record and the promoter remains bound by it.
Why This Order Matters
This order is significant because MahaRERA has clearly laid down that in phased developments forming part of the same sanctioned layout, parking (and potentially other facilities) can be allotted in an adjacent phase/building, even if it carries a separate RERA registration number. The ruling places strong emphasis on evidence of meetings, consent, and transparent processes (such as lottery with video proof) over post-facto dissatisfaction of individual allottees.
Also Read: Can Developers Sell Parking to Homebuyers?
