1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.3045 of 2008 Mrs.Sangita Vinayak Sawant & anr. Petitioners Vs. Mangal Adesh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Respondent Mr.C.P.Deogirikar for petitioners. Mrs.S.S.Memon for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 29, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Deogirikar, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Memon appears for the respondent - Society. . The respondent - Society filed Dispute No.199 of 2006 before the Co-operative Court at Mumbai along with an application for injunction against the petitioners. The said application was rejected on 23/11/2007 and, therefore, A.O. No.8 of 2008 came to be filed before the Co-operative Appellate Court at Mumbai by the respondent - Society. The said A.O. has been partly allowed and the lower Appellate Court has granted injunction against the petitioners in respect of the stilt parking area admeasuring 389 2 sq.ft. and the Society’s prayer for an injunction against the petitioners in respect of occupation of Flat No.102-A located in the respondent - Society has been refused. . The petitioners are aggrieved by the injunction order concerning the stilt parking space admeasuring about 389 sq.ft. The lower Appellate Court has held that the stilt parking space is a property of the society like any other common amenity and it could not be sold or claimed by the developer as a premises for disposal under the MOFA. The view taken by the lower Appellate Court is in keeping with the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions. Even otherwise, there were no prima facie documents with the petitioners in support of their claim that they, in fact, had purchased the stilt parking space admeasuring about 389 sq.f.t as shown in the sanctioned plan bearing No.CE/7169/BSII/WS/AH dated 9th June 2005 in the building known as "Mangal Aadesh", 4th Road, T.P.S. III, Santacruz (East), Mumbai. Hence, there is no case made out calling for reconsideration of the view taken by the lower Appellate Court. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Society that the petitioners have one car and 3 one two wheeler and they have been parking the same within the premises. . Whether the petitioners have one car or two cars, they must be allowed to park the vehicles within the compound of the building. . Hence the petition is rejected and at the same time it is directed that the Society shall restrain itself in disallowing the petitioners from parking their vehicles inside the compound. (B.H.MARL