SATHYA APARTMENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. KAKUMANU CONSULTANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint is by an Association of Flat Owners of a building known as Sathya Apartments. The opposite party is the builder of the flats. The complainants have alleged several deficiencies in the Apartments in their occupation and they have prayed for several reliefs. The opposite party filed a written version denying the allegations made against it. A Commissioner was appointed and he inspected the Apartments and submitted his report. A compromise was arrived at between the parties in respect of the matter excepting two items. One is, according to the complainants, the electricity main board in the building had been fixed at a lower level which is likely to be submerged in case of rain and it has got to be fixed at a higher level. The opposite party agrees to do it. However,' the opposite party states that it will take some time to do the work, but the complainants express their apprehension that to do the said work the opposite party may make a long time and this would be inconvenient to the residents.

(2.) Considering tliese, we direct the opposite party to immediately within ten days apply to the Electricity Board regarding this and finish the work within two weeks from the date of obtaining their permission.

(3.) The next is, according to the complainants, the opposite party has dumped debris in the basement of the building and has installed roller shutters at the entry point and has permitted a third party to occupy a portion of the basement under his lock and key and these have got to be removed. But the opposite party contends that as regards the basement, the complainants have no right to ask for any relief. According to the opposite party, the complainants have no right with regard to the basement and therefore, this prayer of theirs cannot be granted. It is common ground that each of the Flat Owners have been allotted certain shares out of the total of 1000 shares. All the Flat Owners who are members of the Complainant Association have purchased, admittedly, only a total of 740 shares of the total area and all the Flats together cover this 740 shares. The complainants have not shown that they are entitled to any area of land more than the area covered by the said 740 shares. This being the case, their claim for a right in the unbuilt basement area has no basis. It follows therefore, that they cannot ask for removal of the occupation of basement area by the opposite party or anyone permitted by them. Tlierefore, this relief asked for by the Complainant Association cannot be granted and it is rejected.