- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32781-DB RERA.A No. 29 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA RERA APPEAL NO. 29 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SIGNATURE DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KOUSTHUBHAM, NO: 29/208-B, LANE NO.28 JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 682 019 BRANCH OFFICE AT 32, 3RD FLOOR, ABOVE HDFC BANK 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU URBAN-560 034. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. MR. PRASANTH NARAYANAN MANAGING DIRECTOR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBLI BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS, MISSON ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32781-DB RERA.A No. 29 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. MR. SANDEEP G.W. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, SON OF MR. GANPATHI, RESIDING AT, FLAT B-107, SIGNATURE CREST APARTMENTS SY.NO. 44/4, GONIGHATTAPURA VILLAGE SARJAPURA, BENGALURU -562 125. 3. MRS. JONALI DAS AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WIFE OF SANDEEP G.W RESIDING AT FLAT B-107, SIGNATURE CREST APARTMENTS SY.NO. 44/4, GONIGHATTAPURA VILLAGE SARJAPURA, BENGALURU - 562 125. …RESPONDENTS THIS RERA.APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 58 OF THE REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT 2016, PRAYING TO ALLOWING THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 24.01.2025 PASSED IN APPEAL (K-REAT) NO.118/2023 PASSED BY THE LD.KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BEARING NO.CMP/220408/0009335 WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT HEREIN. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32781-DB RERA.A No. 29 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) This appeal has been filed under the provisions of Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20161 against the order of the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the aforesaid Act, 2016. 2. It appears that a complaint was filed by the respondents before the Authority under Section 31 of the Act, 2016 against the project (Signature Crest), developed by M/s Signature Dwellings Private Limited. The relief sought was for allotment of an individual parking area, refund of charge difference between super built up area and carpet area, and common areas to be transferred to the Society after its formation. 3. The project was developed at Survey No.44/4, Khatha No.386/44/4/198, situated in Gonnighattapura village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal, Bengaluru Urban and the project was 1 Act 2016 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32781-DB RERA.A No. 29 of 2025 registered with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority vide registration No.PRM/KA/RERA/1251/308/PR/200604/003449. 4. The complainant had entered into an agreement with the appellant inter alia, to provide one covered parking space at the stilt level. A sale deed was thereafter executed in favour of the complainant on 20.12.2021. An amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was paid towards car parking. The contention in the complaint was that the allotted car parking is defective as it is only 7.5 feet in width and their car had a number of scratches due to the congested parking. It was further stated that the parking is a shared parking and it is not an individual parking, which is not in terms of the agreement. The allotment of parking was done by draw of lots with two types of parkings built by the builder. Some were 11.5 feet and others were 7.5 feet in width. It was a matter of luck as to who gets the bigger one and who gets the smaller one. It was stated that the complainants had paid full price of the parking, even more than the settled 9% of the cost of the flat to the extent of 9.4%. It was stated that nowhere in the Act 2016, it is provided that the builder can sell flats on super built up area basis; he can quote - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32781-DB RERA.A No. 29 of 2025 any rate for the carpet area, but Act does not allow selling flats other than on carpet area basis. The builder be asked to pay the differential cost of the flat as per the calculation submitted by them. 5. The appellants denied the allegations made by them against the complainant. It was stated that in the agreement of sale dated 27.11.2020, one covered parking in the stilt level was also mentioned and thereafter the sale deed was executed in favour of the complainants. Thereafter, the builder had handed over possession to the complainants with all amenities as agreed. One covered parking car parking was allotted on the stilt level to the complainants which they accepted. The car parking space was allotted through lucky draw and all allottees were present. Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was sought. 6. In an elaborate order, relying upon the BBMP Building By-Laws 2003, the authority was of the opinion that it was necessary to give directions to the appellant to provide the car parking space to the complainant as per the BBMP building By-laws. It was also found that the builder had charged on the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32781-DB RERA.A No. 29 of 2025 super built up area instead of the carpet area and received the amount from the complainants, accordingly. This amounted to deficiency in service, which relief did not come under the purview of the Authority. Accordingly, it was ordered that the appellant provide car parking space to the complainants as per the BBMP building By-laws 2003. Other directions were also issued. 7. Challenging the order of the Authority to provide car parking space to the complainants as per the BBMP Building By-laws 2003, the appellant filed the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal (Appeal (K-REAT) No.118/2023. The question framed by The Appellate Authority for its consideration was: i) Whether the Appellant-promoter proves that the Authority was not justified in directing the Promoter to provide separate car parking space to the Allottees and for handing over the common area to the Association? 8. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the allotment of car parking was done through lucky draw in presence of all the allottees, after issuing prior notice, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32781-DB RERA.A No. 29 of 2025 the complainants were allotted parking space. It was also stated that the project came under the jurisdiction of the Anekal Planning Authority and not under the BBMP, whereas the Regulatory Authority had ordered the Promoter to provide car parking space to the respondent as per BBMP By-laws. The allottees/complainants on the other hand contended that under the BMRDA regulations, the parking space ought not to be less than 18 square meters, which is identical to the By-laws of BBMP. 9. The Appellate Authority after noticing the provision of Regulation 13(1) of the BMRDA Regulations, 1996, found that it was the same as the BBMP Building By-laws 2003. Therefore, it found no substance in the arguments advanced by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant with regard to the direction of the Authority for providing proper car parking space was dismissed. 10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue with regard to application of the BMRDA Regulations was raised orally for the first time before the Tribunal and thus there was no occasion for the appellant to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32781-DB RERA.A No. 29 of 2025 make his submissions in opposition to that or to contradict that. He has however, fairly admitted that the Regulations of the BMRDA would be applicable as far as the project is concerned. He has further contended that in the year 2024, the Association has been constituted and therefore, the builder would have no liability as far as compliance of the order of the Authority is concerned. 11. The question regarding application of a particular Regulations to the project in question is a matter that was agitated before the Appellate Authority by the complainants and it is not a factual narration that required contradiction by the appellant. Moreover, it is noted that the order of the Authority was passed on 21.07.2023 and proceedings before the Authority were initiated way before the residents' Association was constituted. The appellant cannot seek to be divested of its liability under the order of the Authority by stating that it is for the Association to comply with the order. The submission is wholly baseless and is liable to be rejected. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32781-DB RERA.A No. 29 of 2025 arises in the instant appeal. This appeal is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2