I read the official Eldeco La Vida Bella brochure cover to cover — and caught the property portals getting four facts wrong.
ENTERED 20 JUL 2026 · METHOD: BROCHURE READ PAGE-BY-PAGE, SET AGAINST NAMED PORTAL LISTINGS AND THE UP-RERA REGISTRY
Quick answer · 20 July 2026 — I read Eldeco La Vida Bella's official 22-page brochure page by page and set it against what's currently live on the property portals. Four facts don't survive the comparison. The towers are five, all G+22 per the brochure's master plan — not the G+25 or G+28 that several listing pages still carry. The land is 14,998 sq. mtr, about 3.71 acres per the brochure — not the 4 or 4.5 acres a handful of pages inflate it to. The 2 BHK is real: the brochure documents Types 02 and 03 as working 2BHK+2T units, even though the project is marketed — and widely listed — as a 3 & 4 BHK-only address. And the fourth fact isn't a portal error at all: the brochure specifies an 8-ft main door, while the developer's own eldecogroup.com page has separately said 9-ft — the developer disagreeing with itself. Every figure below carries its tier — developer-stated (brochure), reported (named portal) or verified (UP-RERA registry) — so you can check each one without taking my word for it.
How I checked this
No mystery method — four steps, and any of them are repeatable by you.
- I read the official Eldeco La Vida Bella brochure — all 22 pages — cover to cover, the way I'd want a fact-checker to read it before repeating a single number from it.
- I lined up the tower-height, land and configuration claims from the currently-live portal and channel-partner listing pages against what the brochure's own master plan and floor-plan spreads state, spread by spread.
- For the main door, I checked something else entirely: the developer's own eldecogroup.com specification page — because in this one case the mismatch isn't a portal guessing, it's the developer's brochure and the developer's own website disagreeing with each other.
- I checked every figure that has a registry counterpart against UP-RERA registration UPRERAPRJ136219/04/2024, because the registry outranks the brochure, and the brochure outranks any portal, wherever the two overlap.
The four facts, resolved
Same order as the quick answer above. Each card shows what's circulating, what the brochure actually states, and my verdict.
"G+25 to G+28 floors" — no, all five towers are G+22
What's circulating: several property-portal and channel-partner listing pages describe La Vida Bella's towers as G+25, G+28, or simply "25+" floors.
What the brochure states: the master plan names five towers — Bellissimo 1, 2, 3 and Magnifico 1, 2 — and lists every one of them at G+22. I checked the spread myself; no tower is drawn taller than G+22 anywhere in the plan.
The portal figures were wrong on this one. The RERA-filed sanctioned plan is the document that would settle it at the legal level above even the brochure — I haven't seen that plan myself, so ask the desk for it before treating either number as final.
"4 to 4.5 acres" — no, it's 14,998 sq. mtr, about 3.71 acres
What's circulating: land-area claims split three ways across listing pages — 3.71, 4 and 4.5 acres, each stated with equal confidence.
What the brochure states: 14,998 sq. mtr — roughly 3.71 acres — printed in the corporate block beside the promoter CIN and the GNIDA layout-approval reference SM-22-AUG-2023:19040, dated 17.01.2024.
The pages already quoting 3.71 acres had it right; the 4 and 4.5-acre pages were rounding up, or repeating an older figure. The layout-approval document is what would confirm this in writing if you wanted it.
8-ft or 9-ft? This time it isn't a portal mistake
What's circulating: this specific number doesn't come from a portal at all — it comes from the developer's own eldecogroup.com specification page, which has stated a 9-ft main door.
What the brochure states: PU-finished hardwood, 8-ft, with a digital lock.
Both documents belong to the same developer, and they don't agree with each other. I'm printing the brochure figure here because it's the more detailed, dated document — but if a door height genuinely matters to your decision, ask for it as a written line in your specification annexure rather than trusting either page alone.
"Premium 3 & 4 BHK only" — the same brochure says otherwise
What's circulating: La Vida Bella is marketed, and listed almost everywhere, as a 3 & 4 BHK premium project — that's the developer's own chosen positioning, and it isn't false advertising, exactly.
What the brochure states: the same brochure documents eight unit types, and two of them — Type 02 (902/1,555 sq ft) and Type 03 (826/1,425 sq ft) — are 2BHK+2T units in Bellissimo 1-3.
Both things are true at once: the premium 3 & 4 BHK story is real, and so are these two smaller types. If a 2 BHK is what you're searching for, it exists in this project — ask the desk for the current tower-wise unit mix in writing, since availability moves and the brochure doesn't restate it.
The full 8-type table, printed here
This is the table that resolves fact #4 — the same table lives in full on the floor-plans page, with the plan spreads and specification suite. Printing it here so the 2 BHK rows sit next to the fact-check that found them.
| Type | Configuration | Carpet | Super | Tower |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | 3BHK+3T | 1,104 | 1,905 | Bellissimo 1-3 |
| 02 | 2BHK+2T | 902 | 1,555 | Bellissimo 1-3 |
| 03 | 2BHK+2T | 826 | 1,425 | Bellissimo 1-3 |
| 04 | 4BHK+4T | 1,597 | 2,755 | Magnifico 1-2 |
| 05 | 4BHK+4T+Servant | 1,912 | 3,300 | Magnifico 2 |
| 06 | 3BHK+3T | 1,304 | 2,250 | Magnifico 1-2 |
| 07 | 3BHK+3T | 1,357 | 2,340 | Magnifico 1-2 |
| 08 | 3BHK+3T+Servant | 1,667 | 2,880 | Magnifico 2 |
Transcribed from the developer's official brochure, July 2026 — developer-stated tier. Rows 02 and 03 are the 2 BHK types this fact-check corrects portals on. The RERA-defined carpet area of your exact unit, stated in your agreement, is the binding number. Full table, plan spreads and specification suite →
My honest take, after reading all 22 pages
If you asked me what this reconciliation actually tells a buyer, it isn't really about doors or acreage — it's about which source to default to. Portals disagreeing with each other on tower height and land before the brochure settled it tells you portal chatter is a starting point, never an endpoint. The developer disagreeing with its own website on a door height tells you something else: even a developer's own primary material can conflict with itself, so a second primary source is worth checking before you treat one line as final — brochure against website, brochure against registry, whichever pair you can get your hands on. And the 2 BHK story is the one I'd flag hardest for anyone specifically searching for a 2 BHK here — it exists, it's real, and "premium 3 & 4 BHK" marketing language nearly buried it in every listing that copied the positioning instead of the floor-plan page. None of this is a reason to distrust the project; it's a reason to ask for the specification annexure and the sanctioned plan in writing before you sign anything — which is good practice on every project, not just this one.
Frequently asked
Does Eldeco La Vida Bella actually have 2 BHK flats?
Yes. The official brochure documents Type 02 (2BHK+2T, 902 sq ft carpet / 1,555 sq ft super) and Type 03 (2BHK+2T, 826 sq ft carpet / 1,425 sq ft super), both in Bellissimo 1-3. Official marketing positions the project as a 3 & 4 BHK-premium address, and portal listings largely repeat that framing — but the brochure I read cover to cover documents these two 2 BHK types as real units, not an anomaly. Ask the desk for the current tower-wise unit mix in writing before you shortlist, since which types are open changes over time.
How many floors does Eldeco La Vida Bella actually have?
G+22, across all five towers — Bellissimo 1, 2, 3 and Magnifico 1, 2. That is what the brochure's own master plan states, and it resolves the G+25 to G+28 range that several portal and channel-partner listing pages still carry. The RERA-filed sanctioned plan is the document that settles this at the legal level; the brochure is the strongest source I have read, but I have not seen that sanctioned plan myself.
What is the correct floor plan and unit table for Eldeco La Vida Bella?
Eight unit types, transcribed from the developer's official brochure: Type 01 (3BHK+3T, 1,104/1,905 sq ft), Type 02 (2BHK+2T, 902/1,555), Type 03 (2BHK+2T, 826/1,425), Type 04 (4BHK+4T, 1,597/2,755), Type 05 (4BHK+4T+Servant, 1,912/3,300), Type 06 (3BHK+3T, 1,304/2,250), Type 07 (3BHK+3T, 1,357/2,340), Type 08 (3BHK+3T+Servant, 1,667/2,880) — carpet/super in sq ft. The full table with tower mapping and the plan spreads themselves are on the floor-plans page.
Is the Eldeco La Vida Bella main door 8-ft or 9-ft?
The printed brochure specifies an 8-ft PU-finished hardwood main door with a digital lock. The developer's own eldecogroup.com specification page has separately stated 9-ft. This is not a portal error — it is the developer's two own documents disagreeing with each other. I am carrying the brochure figure as the more detailed, dated source, but if a door height genuinely matters to your decision, ask for it as a written line in your specification annexure rather than trusting either page.
How much land does Eldeco La Vida Bella actually sit on?
14,998 sq. mtr, which works out to approximately 3.71 acres — stated in the brochure's corporate block alongside the promoter CIN and the GNIDA layout-approval number (SM-22-AUG-2023:19040, dated 17.01.2024). Portal listings split three ways between 3.71, 4 and 4.5 acres; the pages already showing 3.71 acres had it right.
Is eldecoflats.com the official Eldeco La Vida Bella website?
No. The developer's official site is eldecogroup.com, and the promoter of record on the UP-RERA registry is ELDECO REAL ESTATE LIMITED. eldecoflats.com is run by an independent, UP-RERA-registered channel-partner desk, Vidastu Advisory (UPRERAAGT000309/01/2026) — the fee comes from the developer, never from a site visitor, and every figure on this page is tier-tagged to its source.
Is Eldeco La Vida Bella worth considering, after this fact-check?
My honest, personal read, not a guarantee: none of these four corrections are a reason to distrust the project — they are a reason to ask for paper before you sign anything. Portals disagreeing with each other on tower height and land tells you portal chatter is a starting point, not an endpoint. The developer's own brochure disagreeing with the developer's own website on a door height tells you a second primary source is worth checking even when the first one is the developer's. And the 2 BHK story is the one I would flag hardest for anyone specifically searching for a 2 BHK here — it is real, and "premium 3 & 4 BHK" marketing language nearly buries it. Ask for the specification annexure and the sanctioned plan in writing, which is good practice on every project, not just this one.