Nydv
31 May 2016 at 11:37
Builder designed phase 1 with D1, D2 buildings having 56 flats and 56 rowhouses/bunglows. But he
kept separate entry gate for buildings & rowhouse with big wall in between. He provided common amenities(club house, swimming pool, borewell) in rowhouse complex which supposed to be common for both. STP tank is also common and it is on side of D1, D2 building. But rowhouse people refusing us to use amenities on the basis that in their agreement builders mentioned amenties only for row houses. Because of that we people living in D1, D2 are not able use these amenities and builder is also not taking any action for that....So at personal level i am not able to use amenities promised to me by builder hence want to see legal relief for same. One of bunglow resident already filed a case against builder on 09Mar2016 in Civil Court Senior Division, Pune for which motive we also do not know. In my sale
agreement list of amenities clearly
mentioned by builder.
Please let us know where we should approach to get access to our amenities: Consumer Court or Civil Court and what would be possible solutions here ?? We are not looking for Compensation as that will not solve our problem as our children needs promised amenities(club house, swimming pool) for enjoyment.
Understanding of one of lawyer we met :
As of the present situation as per your stated facts it is clear that you are already in possession of the property and are living the the so called society of flats where two types of flats are sold by the builder and occupants are living peaceful except the dispute over the use of common amenities. It is also apparent from the facts stated that there is no dispute about the construction and handing over the possession of the flats in question and also about the construction of the common amenities according to plan. But only about the use of amenities. It is to be decided before any further course of action whether the dispute of use of amenities is with your so called neighbor in row houses or with the builder.
Which court consumer or civil court is
still not answered by him ????
Member Strength 9,49,371 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Relief under sec 38 read with sec 34
Civil Suit suggested for permanent injunction under Sec 38 and Sec 34.
Dispute on usage of common recreation facilities between 2 blocks of SAME registered project( A/B/C versus D1_D2)
A/B/C blocks exists on plotA and D1_D2 on plotB . Both have independent gates. Most facilities on plotA. Few on plotB.
A/B/C in full possession of all common recreation facilities from Day1 as most are on plotA.
D1_D2 used facilities for few years but stopped by A/B/C from last 4-5 years. But D1_D2 uses water tank on A/B/C side from Day1.
Through this planned Civil Suit D1_D2 wanted to use other facilities also like club house, swimming pool.
Query is on Sections suggested for this Suit.
To ask relief under Sec38 : Filing party need possession on the said property.
In this scenario D1_D2 who will file Suit have partial possession only.
Can maintainability of suit is questionable with planned sec 38 and sec 34 ??
Thanks,
Nyadav