What do you guys think about Jaypee Greens Wishtown - NOIDA? Is this a good time to buy? Is Wishtown a good investment?

Cheers! :)
Read more
Reply
7997 Replies
Sort by :Filter by :
  • Originally Posted by mpandey78


    1. Any idea if there is an official increase announced by Jaypee for Klassic duplex 1045 sq ft flats? I understand the final super area would be determined at teh time of possession but have been hearing a lot that some of the projects new brochure has the updated super area.
    2. Jaypee can increase teh super area upto 10%. What happens if they do so by more than that? Can that be challenged?
    3. What can customers do if Jaypee increases the super area but only a minor increase in teh carpet area. As in, Jaypee cannot say for example sake increase the super area by 100 sq ft and the difference to the carpet area be say 15 sq ft. Would that be legal? I have read few people complaining about it so was curious to know if anyone has any opinion on this?
    4. Ideally teh carpet area is anywhere between say 65 to 70 percent of teh said super area. If Jaypee increase teh super area, should that not be on similar specs? As in for a 100 sq ft super area increase the carpet area should also increase by 65 to 70 sq ft. I wanted to know if there is any regulatory regarding this.

    Yet again, thanks everyone for having assisted me with my previous queries.


    Pandeyji
    Here are my thoughts:
    1. Official announcement for existing buyers wont be made up until possession generally.
    2. Anything JP does (including increase in super area of more than 10%) can be challenged. But the chances of that challenge succeeding are v low if not 0. BPTP and frnds have increased super area by 15 - 36% in FBD... No one has been able to get a stay on this. And this super area increase had 0 corresponding carpet area increase.

    3. Ppl can protest, file cased and stage dharna etx. Any of this is unlikely to succeed IMO. This doesnt mean one shudnt try.

    4. There is no regulatory requirement on this. Builders frequently con their customers like this under excuses of structural stability etx.

    Among my recent transactions only Ashiana has not increased super area at the time of delivery. Others have increased from 8% to 20% without too many ppl complaining.

    Sent from my GT-I9100
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by dineshsays
    Pandey Sir - I read a few links that you attached. What I could make out was that it is illegal to sell open and stilt parking but selling basement parking IS permitted as it is not part of common area and builder does extra construction for that.

    Jaypee is only selling basement parking.

    Can anyone check if this view is correct / incorrect?

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2


    I think some lawyer should confirm if selling parking in basement is legal in terms of court judgement etc. it will become important when time for delivery of various projects come and before that for talking to builder.
    As regards super area increase no builder can be allowed to increase the same without actual increase in area even if it is written in allotment letter or application. We can't have a clause or agreement that u can befool me or blackmail me or overcharge me. In such case such clause will be invalid or illegal or such portion of contract will be be void/voidable/void abinitio as we read in Contract Act earlier. I am not a lawyer, but I did read similar things while I was a student.
    CommentQuote
  • What will eventually be the entry for Jaypee Wishtown from Delhi Side ? Currently the side lane from the expressway going to a small underpass connects the township with Delhi. Once Wishtown is inhabited this will be a very difficult road to travel since two cars can barely travel side by side on this road.

    Is there any direct entry planned from the expressway through a loop flyover or an underpass?
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by dineshsays
    Pandey Sir - I read a few links that you attached. What I could make out was that it is illegal to sell open and stilt parking but selling basement parking IS permitted as it is not part of common area and builder does extra construction for that.

    Jaypee is only selling basement parking.

    Can anyone check if this view is correct / incorrect?

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2


    India uses common law the same as other commonwealth countries and I have never come across the notion that parking space is free anywhere.

    What you are saying seems to be the most logical scenario as the only way the court can raise objection is if something that has been sold to you is being resold back to you. I.e. you paid for the uncovered space on the plot as part of you super area but didn't pay for any additional space they create in the basement.

    Therefore the builder should most likely be allowed to charge for underground parking (99%).

    See building basement parking is not compulsory for the builder. It is additional work done to provide convenience to the clients. If the court makes the builders give away covered parking space builders will refrain from building adequate space therefore setting bad precedence.

    Charging for outside parking though is daylight robbery which is the only place I can see anyone take objection.

    The other most likely scenario could be that the court may ask jaypee to include the underground parking as part of the super area and have no reserved parking. This seems unlikely and we will end up paying for it still.

    There is nothing like a free lunch people. But still I would be happy to be proved wrong.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by Imperialnoid
    India uses common law the same as other commonwealth countries and I have never come across the notion that parking space is free anywhere.

    What you are saying seems to be the most logical scenario as the only way the court can raise objection is if something that has been sold to you is being resold back to you. I.e. you paid for the uncovered space on the plot as part of you super area but didn't pay for any additional space they create in the basement.

    Therefore the builder should most likely be allowed to charge for underground parking (99%).

    See building basement parking is not compulsory for the builder. It is additional work done to provide convenience to the clients. If the court makes the builders give away covered parking space builders will refrain from building adequate space therefore setting bad precedence.

    Charging for outside parking though is daylight robbery which is the only place I can see anyone take objection.

    The other most likely scenario could be that the court may ask jaypee to include the underground parking as part of the super area and have no reserved parking. This seems unlikely and we will end up paying for it still.

    There is nothing like a free lunch people. But still I would be happy to be proved wrong.


    It is logical that builder should be able to charge for covered parking as he is incurring cost on the same. Regulations also require builders to construct specified number of parkings. It is natural that we as buyers, should pay for covered parking when we are getting exclusive right to that. This may not be the case for open parking.
    However when it comes to increasing super area at the time of handing over possession without increasing proportionate carpet area, this is more than day light robbery and cheating. I do hope that builder like Jaypee will not do this. It is ok when area is increased or layout is changed.
    CommentQuote
  • visited gc side of wish town today .... was in a bit of a hurry so didn't stay for long .... but man what a place

    Tremendous work by lnt, bl kashyap, ahluwalias..... fundu ek dum :bab (59):
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by dineshsays
    Pandey Sir - virtually all builders are doing this. We are in the absence of a regulator and a basic thing as defining carpet / super area is not mandatory.

    We all conciously agree in the application form that minor increase / decrease will be allowed.

    I am unaware of any court ruling so far which can help reign the builder in.

    They are all taking advantage of this lack of regulation

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2


    I was watching a property show in NDTV and the legal expert (who also happens to be a well know property lawyer) mentioned that builders can increase super area and thats legal. This provided that they have taken the approval of their respective authority which would be Noida Authority in our case. Customers can always file an RTI to seek if the authority has given approval and if they have then the customers would have to pay. Guess, the important thing that I did take from all of this is that the authority approval was required before builders could increase the super area.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by anantv
    Pandeyji
    Here are my thoughts:
    1. Official announcement for existing buyers wont be made up until possession generally.
    2. Anything JP does (including increase in super area of more than 10%) can be challenged. But the chances of that challenge succeeding are v low if not 0. BPTP and frnds have increased super area by 15 - 36% in FBD... No one has been able to get a stay on this. And this super area increase had 0 corresponding carpet area increase.

    3. Ppl can protest, file cased and stage dharna etx. Any of this is unlikely to succeed IMO. This doesnt mean one shudnt try.

    4. There is no regulatory requirement on this. Builders frequently con their customers like this under excuses of structural stability etx.

    Among my recent transactions only Ashiana has not increased super area at the time of delivery. Others have increased from 8% to 20% without too many ppl complaining.

    Sent from my GT-I9100


    Thanks for responding. I do have a question regarding anything being increased by 10% can be challenged but chances are low. As per the PAL, the super area can either increase/decrease by upto 10%. Now, if thats clearly mentioned there then why do you feel that success is low if not 0. If that were the case then if the builders refuse to pay the late penalty charge then that too can be challenged but success would be low since even that information is mentioned in teh PAL and no specific document is provided for that. This kind of confuses me. Please guide.

    Also, as far as BPTP is concerned, I heard in teh same property show in NDTV that about 30 people had challenged it, got the RTI from Huda (the property was in Gurgaon, Sec 57 I belive) and teh approval was not approved by HUDA and hence they were not charged for the increase in super area. Now, I dont know know whats true and whats not.

    Also, thanks everyone as this certainly is an informative blog and worth the time spent following it.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by Ranjeetnew
    It is logical that builder should be able to charge for covered parking as he is incurring cost on the same. Regulations also require builders to construct specified number of parkings. It is natural that we as buyers, should pay for covered parking when we are getting exclusive right to that. This may not be the case for open parking.
    However when it comes to increasing super area at the time of handing over possession without increasing proportionate carpet area, this is more than day light robbery and cheating. I do hope that builder like Jaypee will not do this. It is ok when area is increased or layout is changed.


    Thanks for responding to the parking charges query raised guys. Seeing your points on parking charges, I too sort of seem to agree that charging may be logical as teh builder incurs charges. I was wondering though that if it were legal then why would DLF not give the ownership rights and right to use and why would they not sell parking charges seperately like all builders. There certainly has to be something within the law. Any insight by anyone if they have any idea about DLF not selling parking slots seperately.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by dineshsays
    Pandey Sir - I read a few links that you attached. What I could make out was that it is illegal to sell open and stilt parking but selling basement parking IS permitted as it is not part of common area and builder does extra construction for that.

    Jaypee is only selling basement parking.

    Can anyone check if this view is correct / incorrect?

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2


    Thanks Dinesh bhai. Reading the articles it seemed that "stilt" parking was any covered parking as well which was not termed as a garage. But, I can be wrong here. End of the day, I don't mind paying the charges as I had agreed to it at the time of booking and was aware of this expense. I would ofcourse mind if it were illegal to charge and builders were still charging for it. Just thought it worthwhile to open this discussion to gather everyone's thought on this matter.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by Imperialnoid
    India uses common law the same as other commonwealth countries and I have never come across the notion that parking space is free anywhere.

    What you are saying seems to be the most logical scenario as the only way the court can raise objection is if something that has been sold to you is being resold back to you. I.e. you paid for the uncovered space on the plot as part of you super area but didn't pay for any additional space they create in the basement.

    Therefore the builder should most likely be allowed to charge for underground parking (99%).

    See building basement parking is not compulsory for the builder. It is additional work done to provide convenience to the clients. If the court makes the builders give away covered parking space builders will refrain from building adequate space therefore setting bad precedence.

    Charging for outside parking though is daylight robbery which is the only place I can see anyone take objection.

    The other most likely scenario could be that the court may ask jaypee to include the underground parking as part of the super area and have no reserved parking. This seems unlikely and we will end up paying for it still.

    There is nothing like a free lunch people. But still I would be happy to be proved wrong.


    This I agree that if builders stop building basement parking since they cannot charge for it then that would set a bad precedence. I just wished that the builders thought of the same too while increasing super area superficially.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by dineshsays
    Pandey Sir - I read a few links that you attached. What I could make out was that it is illegal to sell open and stilt parking but selling basement parking IS permitted as it is not part of common area and builder does extra construction for that.

    Jaypee is only selling basement parking.

    Can anyone check if this view is correct / incorrect?

    Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2


    The law is based on a SC judgment on the interpretation of a maharashtra local laws which specified that garage space could be sold by builder. Giving interpretation to the word 'garage', SC said stilth parking, basement or open parking is nit garage since each garage should have walls on 3 sides. It also held that these areas form part of common areas which are sold by a builder in the form of super area...what otherwise is then super area? Why r u paying that? These questions are answered in that particular SC judgement

    As far as i know no builder anywhere is following this...but any agreement to sell parking is a void agreement...if u have a time and energy, try n fight that...most people will just buy that for peace of mind
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by MeinSonu
    The law is based on a SC judgment on the interpretation of a maharashtra local laws which specified that garage space could be sold by builder. Giving interpretation to the word 'garage', SC said stilth parking, basement or open parking is nit garage since each garage should have walls on 3 sides. It also held that these areas form part of common areas which are sold by a builder in the form of super area...what otherwise is then super area? Why r u paying that? These questions are answered in that particular SC judgement

    As far as i know no builder anywhere is following this...but any agreement to sell parking is a void agreement...if u have a time and energy, try n fight that...most people will just buy that for peace of mind


    Thats totally true ... lots of people here are assuming builder is doing great service by constructing basement and stilt parking and thus we should compensate him for it. But fact of the matter is he is double charging you firstly, he has been paid as part of super area and secondly, he has also enjoyed benefits of extra FAR from local authorities in constructing more units (or larger units). All in all builders are having free lunch and we are suffering as there is total lack of government regulations in this regards. Irony is, even in commonwealth games village where we were checking out few units ... DDA is asking for 9lacs for open parking spot.
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by mindguru
    Thats totally true ... lots of people here are assuming builder is doing great service by constructing basement and stilt parking and thus we should compensate him for it. But fact of the matter is he is double charging you firstly, he has been paid as part of super area and secondly, he has also enjoyed benefits of extra FAR from local authorities in constructing more units (or larger units). All in all builders are having free lunch and we are suffering as there is total lack of government regulations in this regards. Irony is, even in commonwealth games village where we were checking out few units ... DDA is asking for 9lacs for open parking spot.


    Are you sure basements are included in super area?

    Also , could you clarify the part in bold?
    CommentQuote
  • Originally Posted by fatichar
    Are you sure basements are included in super area?

    Also , could you clarify the part in bold?


    Answer is no. But I think you are missing a point. The Judgment does not provide whether lawn is a common area, or club is common area, or lobby is common area. It defines common area in holistic manner and provides a test whether such part of the building is normally in common use. It rejects the notion that when a parking space is sold to a flat purchaser, it is to the exclusion of other flat purchasers and, therefore, logically also it cannot be part of common areas. So any area which is not covered from three sides wall and not sold as a unit should be a common area.
    But remember that if any case is filed today by a noida flat owner or society, the builder will try to differentiate this judgment on the basis that maharashtra local laws are involved which are not applicable in UP. Don't know what view consumer court will take if such thing happens.
    CommentQuote