Judgment : 1. The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, Arbitration Act). The Petitioner, original claimant has challenged Award dated 12 September 2011 passed by the sole Arbitrator, thereby rejected the statement of claim with costs. The operative part of the Award is as under : “The Prayer Clause “a-1” and “a-2” of the Statement of Claim are hereby rejected with costs.” 2. Prayer clauses (a1) and (a2) of the State of Claim are as under : “(a-1) that it be declared by this Honourable Tribunal that the claimants are entitled to sell the 11 Flats and constructed area and stilt parking space and other amenities/benefits to prospective buyers pursuant to clauses (4) and (17) of the Development Agreement dated 20/2/2006 being Exhibit “A” hereto. (a-2) that it may be declared that this Hon'ble Tribunal that the sale of 11 Flats and constructed area stilts parking is in due compliance of the clauses (4) and (17) of the Development Agreement dated 20/2/2006 being Exhibit “A” hereto.” 3. Based upon the Development Agreement between the Petitioner, a “developer” and the Respondent, a “owner”, after development of the property, respective flats have been sold to the Society and new purchasers. The dispute arose with regard to the right to sell five (5) stilt car parking lots. Clauses 4 and 17 of the Agreement were basis of the claim of the developer. Clause 38 was invoked to resolve the dispute. There was no response and, therefore, this Court by order dated 12 October, 2010, appointed the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. The arbitration proceedings proceeded accordingly. The learned Arbitrator, after considering the rival contentions as well as the material placed on record, rightly rejected the claim by interpreting the relevant clauses of the Agreement in the following words : “14 Having read these clauses, it is clear that there is no reference of the stilt car parking spaces in any of these clauses. In clause (4), the claimant is given right “to sell, deal with and dispose of remaining premises, constructed area and other amenities/benefits”. In clause (4), the claimant is given right “to sell, deal with and dispose of remaining premises, constructed area and other amenities/benefits”. In clause (17) it is made clear that “the claimant would be entitled to sell and deal with remaining 11 flats and area save and except the 15 flats to be allotted to the said 15 members, to any other person or persons at their sole discretion”. 15 …...... No doubt, the use of the word “remaining premises, constructed area, other amenities/benefits” in Clause (4) and the word “area” used in Clause 17 can be said to be wild enough to cover every thing other than 15 flats which were to be provided to the Respondent's members. However, it has to be borne in mind that this is not a property of which claimant is a Developer. That means that the claimants have purchased the land and constructed the building on his own and is now selling the flats or premises to the outsiders. Here is a case of redevelopment. 17 It appears that claimants were fully aware of this position and that can be amply clear from Clause (21) of the Agreement, which he entered into with the new flat purchasers. The said Agreement is produced at Exhibit “B” by the claimant himself. Clause (21) reads as under- “21 The Buyer of the respective Flats shall be entitled to use and occupy their respective flats only and will not claim any rights in the terraces, staircase, open spaces, compound, parking places, stilts, Garages, etc.” 18 From this it is clear that the claimant was fully aware of the fact that what he could sell to the new flat purchasers was only the flats and nothing else. Moreover, stilt car parking space is an immovable property and if at all it is to be sold, it is to be sold by the registered Agreement, as required under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. No such agreement has been produced by the Claimants. This was obviously because he was fully aware that he has no right to sell the stilt car parking spaces. 18 Under these circumstances, it has to be held that the claimants have no right over the five stilt car parking spaces of the newly constructed building and therefore, he could not sell the same. This was obviously because he was fully aware that he has no right to sell the stilt car parking spaces. 18 Under these circumstances, it has to be held that the claimants have no right over the five stilt car parking spaces of the newly constructed building and therefore, he could not sell the same. His contention, therefore, is baseless and the same cannot be accepted. The five car parking space is the property of Respondent society and the Respondent society can deal with it as advised by the General Body. Hence, the award.” 4. The view so expressed by interpreting the provisions of the agreed clauses, in my view, also need no interference. It is also based upon the judgment passed by this Court an confirmed by the Supreme Court in NahalchandLaloochand Private Limited v. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Limited (2010) 9 SCC 536 ). The relevant paragraphs are as under: “49 The question then is as to whether the stilted portion or stilt area of building is a garage under MOFA. A stilt area is a space above the ground and below the first floor having columns that support the first floor and the building. It may be usable as a parking space but we do not think that for the purposes of MOFA, such portion could be treated as garage. 65 ….....The promoter has no right to sell any portion of such building which is not a “flat” within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) and the entire land and building has to be conveyed to the organisation; the only right which remains with the promoter is to sell unsold flats. It is, thus, clear that the promoter has no right to sell “stilt parking space” as these are neither a “flat” nor appurtenant or attachment to a “flat”.” 5. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, as the reason so given by the learned Arbitrator is well within the purview of law and the record, the view expressed is the only possible view. There is no perversity and/or any illegality. Therefore, the present Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.