DLF LIMITED versus MANMOHAN LOWE AND OTHERS

DLF LIMITED versus MANMOHAN LOWE AND OTHERS

Community and commercial facilities (schools, community centres, shops, etc.) are not automatically categorized as 'common areas and facilities' under the Apartment Act unless included by the colonizer in its declaration. Apartment owners are not entitled to an undivided interest in these facilities; their right is limited to usage, and the ownership remains with the colonizer. The High Court erred in directing the DTCP to decide objections about such facilities, as statute confers discretion to the colonizer. Costs for these facilities cannot be passed on to apartment owners.

Parties
Appellant: DLF Limited; Respondents: Manmohan Lowe and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Apartment Ownership, Common Areas, Community and Commercial Facilities, Regulation of Urban Areas
Urban Development Property Law Apartment Ownership Common Areas Community and Commercial Facilities Regulation of Urban Areas

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DLF Limited

Appellant

Manmohan Lowe and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are community and commercial facilities obligated to be declared as common areas under the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983?
  2. 2 Do apartment owners have an undivided interest in community and commercial facilities within the colony?
  3. 3 Can the colonizer recover costs of community and commercial facilities from apartment owners?

Ratio Decidendi

Community and commercial facilities (schools, community centres, shops, etc.) are not automatically categorized as 'common areas and facilities' under the Apartment Act unless included by the colonizer in its declaration. Apartment owners are not entitled to an undivided interest in these facilities; their right is limited to usage, and the ownership remains with the colonizer. The High Court erred in directing the DTCP to decide objections about such facilities, as statute confers discretion to the colonizer. Costs for these facilities cannot be passed on to apartment owners.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Applications for intervention allowed.
  • Interim orders passed by Supreme Court merged in main judgment; no further orders on contempt petition; contempt petition disposed.