Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) FAQs & News

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
Collapse

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) FAQs & News

Last updated: 4 days ago
269 | Posts
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re : Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) FAQs & News

    MahaRERA dismisses buyer's complaint against Shreeniwas Cotton Mills' World Towers

    MahaRERA dismisses a home buyer’s complaint on the ground that the OC for his flat had already been obtained and it was not registered as an ongoing project on the regulatory authority’s portal
    MUMBAI: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a complaint from a home buyer seeking a refund for delayed possession. The disputed flat is in World Towers, one of the city’s tallest buildings.

    The buyer’s complaint was rejected on the ground that relief can be given only for registered under-construction projects, and that the developer had received the Occupancy Certificate (OC) for the complainant’s apartment. Ready flats with OC don’t fall under the ambit of MahaRERA.

    Vinod Kumar Agrawal had filed a complaint seeking refund of Rs 8.83 crore paid towards a flat on the 31st floor of 80-storeyed World One – Tier II. He said that the developer failed to give possession promised on or before November 20, 2015, and it therefore calls for refund under section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act.

    Appearing for the complainant, advocate Rama said Agrawal issued a cancellation notice to the developer, Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd, in January 2017. A few days later, the developer responded on email, providing the calculation sheet of the refund with requisite interest. However, the amount was never disbursed, for which Agrawal approached MahaRERA.

    Advocate Akshay Pare, appearing for the developer, contended that the complaint was not maintainable as the floors for which the OC has been obtained don’t remain under the supervision of MahaRERA. He submitted that Agrawal had booked the flat on the 31st floor, and the developer had obtained the OC up to 37th floor in July 2017. The phase comprising floors 43 to 80 was the only one registered with MahaRERA.

    Advocate Pare alleged that Agrawal had suppressed the fact from MahaRERA that he has already filed arbitration proceeding seeking the same relief of refund as per the High Court order of April 2, 2019. He also submitted that ICICI Bank had taken symbolic possession of the flat based on a Debt Recovery Tribunal (Jabalpur) order.

    In his rejoinder, Agrawal argued that RERA came into effect only on May 1, 2017, and the developer had not obtained the completion certificate prior to that. He said the developer was therefore liable to register the contentious phase with MahaRERA and pay a penalty.

    He also submitted that pending arbitration proceedings pertain only to the applicable rate of interest to be paid by the developer after the termination of agreement for sale. These proceedings cannot stop him from seeking relief, Agrawal’s lawyer said.

    After his ruling that Agrawal’s complaint is not maintainable, MahaRERA member Vijay Satbir Singh said he is free to file a fresh complaint for violation of section 3 of the RERA Act. As per this section, RERA allowed promoters to apply for registration until July 31, 2017, provided that OC for under-construction projects had not been obtained.

    Ruling out relief under section 18, Singh observed that the HC judgment on December 6, 2017 upholding the validity of RERA had clearly observed that the Act’s provisions shall apply only to registered projects or after the project gets registered. Aggrieved parties can appeal against MahaRERA orders with the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal within 60 days.














    MahaRERA dismisses complaint from a home buyer, says refund for delay only in ongoing home projects, Real Estate News, ET RealEstate (indiatimes.com)
    Please read IREF rules | FAQ's

    Comment


    • Re : Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) FAQs & News

      MahaRERA penalises CCI Projects & Cable Corporation of India for delayed possession

      It directed the builder to pay interest of 9% pa on the Rs 8.4 crore already paid by Rajesh and Surali Joshi who had booked six flats in Wintergreen project in Borivli (east).
      MUMBAI: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has imposed a Rs 10 lakh penalty on a builder for not complying with its earlier order to hand over possession of six flats by 2019. It also directed the builder to pay interest on the payment made by the buyers from September 2016 till the handing over of flats.

      The order by MahaRERA member B D Kapadnis, passed on December 2 and made available on Wednesday, directed the builder to pay interest of 9% pa on the Rs 8.4 crore already paid by Rajesh and Surali Joshi who had booked six flats in Wintergreen project in Borivli (east). The flats were booked in 2012, their counsel Aditya Pratap said, and the possession was promised by February 2016.

      The complaint was against builder CCI Projects Pvt Ltd and Cable Corporation of India.

      Pratap said that after paying 95% of the flat cost with no possession, the buyers had complained before the authority.

      In October 2018, MahaRERA had directed the builder to hand over possession by June 30, 2019. When that deadline too passed, the Joshis claimed interest on their investments for delayed possession and for non-compliance of the earlier order and its consequences under Section 63 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Pratap said. Under Section 63, if a developer fails to comply with orders passed by the authority, he is liable to pay a penalty for every day of default, extending up to 5% of the project cost.

      Abir Patel, counsel for CCI Projects, denied allegations of delay and said the project was registered under the RERA since it was ongoing when the new law took effect in 2016. He argued that the time limit "is subject to extension" and the project was delayed for "reasons beyond their control".

      The builder said he had provided revised possession dates to the buyers. He also said that their financer had failed to advance a loan of Rs 130 crore due to lack of liquidity and they have now applied for benefit under the Last Mile Revival Scheme of the Centre. But, Kapadnis, in his order, said "there's reason to believe the respondents played a fraud on the allottees and the authority too".












      MahaRERA penalises CCI Projects & Cable Corporation of India for delayed possession, Real Estate News, ET RealEstate (indiatimes.com)
      Please read IREF rules | FAQ's

      Comment


      • Re : Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) FAQs & News

        MREAT stays MahaRERA order asking Godrej Properties to refund home buyer

        Appellate tribunal will delve into the legal question on whether MahaRERA can tinker with forfeiture clause under RERA provisions.
        MUMBAI: Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has stayed a MahaRERA order of August 2020 asking Godrej Properties Ltd to refund Rs 39 lakh forfeited by the developer from a home buyer from The Trees project in Vikhroli after terminating the agreements for two flats for alleged failure to stick to payment schedule.

        Allowing the appeal, the tribunal bench comprising chairperson Justice (retd) Indira Jain and administrative member SS Sandhu said the appeal had challenged the jurisdiction of MahaRERA to strike down forfeiture clause in the agreements for sale and the material placed of record shows that the appellant had an arguable case on merits. The bench stayed the order pending final disposal of the appeal.

        In its order dated August 13, 2020, MahaRERA had awarded refund of Rs 19.81 lakh and Rs 19.24 lakh for flats D 503 and 504 booked by home buyer Amit Agarwal. The buyer had approached MahaRERA with a complaint after the developer terminated his agreements and forfeited 20 per cent of the total consideration for his alleged failure to adhere to the payment timelines.

        The MahaRERA order observed that the forfeiture clause did not give the complainant equal bargaining power. “When the model agreement under Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA) provides the refund of the consideration amount, I strike down the forfeiture clause in agreements as it amounts to unfair practice within Section 7 of RERA,” the order said.

        During the appeal hearings, advocate Virendra Saraf, appearing for the developer, contended that by striking down the forfeiture clause in agreements, MahaRERA exercised the powers of Civil Court though it is not within the purview of RERA. He argued that the order effectively sought to rewrite contract between the parties, which is beyond RERA provisions. He also submitted that the order has wide ramifications as the findings regarding the forfeiture clause will ensure complete benefit to flat purchasers, and there will no penal consequences if flat buyers fail to meet their payment commitments. He sought immediate stay on the MahaRERA order.

        Advocate Tanuj Lodha, appearing for the home buyer, strongly argued against the stay. He contended that the developer was not entitled to forfeit money as they have resold both the flats at higher prices and need not incur any loss. He submitted that the condition in the agreement regarding forfeiture is one sided as there is no such clause referring to developer’s obligation in case of default.

        He contended that false allegations regarding delay in payment have been made just to forfeit the amount, to terminate agreements and find out new customers so as to get higher profits.












        MREAT stays MahaRERA order asking Godrej Properties to refund home buyer, Real Estate News, ET RealEstate (indiatimes.com)
        Please read IREF rules | FAQ's

        Comment


        • Re : Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) FAQs & News

          MahaRERA asks Conoor Builders to pay buyer Rs 60 lakh for delay

          Respondent Conoor Builders, represented by advocates Anil D’Souza and Saroj Agarwal, pointed out the project got delayed due to genuine and unavoidable difficulties attributable to land owner, AH Construction.
          MUMBAI: MahaRERA in a recent order directed Conoor Builders to pay the owner of a flat in its Gateway project at Andheri west interest at marginal cost lending rate of SBI plus 2% for a nearly three-year delay in possession. The flat buyer’s lawyers pegged the amount at around Rs 60 lakh.

          MahaRERA member, Vijay Satbir Singh, in his order has also stated the builder cannot shift its statutory liability to the land owner as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the land owner since it is not party to the registered sale agreement executed between the complainant and the respondent.

          Sushant Karkera booked a flat valued at approximately Rs 2 crore in 2014. The builder was liable to hand over possession on or before December 31, 2016. However, the complainant, through his representative chartered accountant Ashwin Shah and advocate Sandeep Manubarwala, stated the builder, without giving any intimation, extended the project completion date to December 2019, which was further extended till December 2020 while registering the project with MahaRERA.

          Respondent Conoor Builders, represented by advocates Anil D’Souza and Saroj Agarwal, pointed out the project got delayed due to genuine and unavoidable difficulties attributable to land owner, AH Construction. The respondent also stated the complainant was aware that AH Construction was owner as well as promoter-owner of the property as the sale agreement clearly mentioned AH Construction has all obligations to procure requisite permissions for the said building.

          However, the complainant contended he had no privity of contract with AH Construction and that he had paid money for the flat to the respondent. The complainant also relied upon earlier SC judgments in case of Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt Ltd and Goregaon Pearl CHS and stated the owner is not liable to pay interest for delay in possession.

          MahaRERA member Singh’s order also stated the complainant was no way concerned with the dispute between the land owner and the respondent.

          The order stated if the project was getting delayed, then the respondent should have informed the complainant and should have revised the date of possession in the agreement by executing a rectification deed or should have offered a refund.











          MahaRERA asks Conoor Builders to pay buyer Rs 60 lakh for delay, Real Estate News, ET RealEstate (indiatimes.com)

          Please read IREF rules | FAQ's

          Comment


          • Re : Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) FAQs & News

            Puzzle parking part of common areas in housing project: MahaRERA

            The order was passed on a complaint by Devarajan Swaminathan, a resident of Lodha Casa Royale at Balkum, Thane (West). The project comprises three towers of 432 flats with basement, stilt, open and puzzle parking.
            MUMBAI: In a relief for flat buyers, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRera) has declared that puzzle parking is part of the common areas in a housing project.

            The order was passed on a complaint by Devarajan Swaminathan, a resident of Lodha Casa Royale at Balkum, Thane (West). The project comprises three towers of 432 flats with basement, stilt, open and puzzle parking.

            Puzzle parking is an automated system featuring combination pallets that enable horizontal and vertical movement of parking spots, just like a puzzle, to park and retrieve vehicles.

            In the last tower of 122 flats, 24 flat owners, including Swaminathan, were allotted puzzle parking by the developer. The society asked them to bear the expenses of its maintenance although they paid proportionate contribution towards other amenities like other members.

            Swaminathan sought a clarification whether a puzzle car park is included in the common areas of the project.

            He argued if there is a structural damage to a pallet, why should any one or few have to bear the expenses. He produced a document which shows the developer has admitted that car parking in the basement, stilt, open area or puzzle is included in the common area amenities of the project. Advocate Amrut Joshi for Lodha said puzzle car parking falls within the definition of “parking spaces” as defined in the agreement for sale. Also, since puzzle parking is part of the common amenities, the flat purchaser’s grievance that he along with 23 others are being made to bear its maintenance alone would be a dispute purely between them and the society.

            In his December 11 order, MahaRera member B D Kapadnis observed that the puzzle car parking system features combination pallets carrying cars. “Individually, the load and unload of the cars is possible. Thus, it is an independent system which is electromechanically operated. Fast in and out of the cars is possible. Combination of multiple levels vertically and horizontally is possible. It is mostly preferred in residential complexes,” he added.

            Kapadnis noted that under Rera, the definition of common areas means “the common basement, terrace, parks, play areas, open parking areas and common storage spaces”.

            “A specific car parking (in a puzzle park setup) to the exclusion of others cannot be allotted to any one allottee and is not possible also. A car can be parked at any level and at any available space. After considering the concept of puzzled parking as explained above, I find that it is a common area and I declare it to be so,” said Kapadnis, disposing of the complaint.















            Lodha Casa Royale: Puzzle parking part of common areas in housing project: MahaRERA, Real Estate News, ET RealEstate (indiatimes.com)

            Please read IREF rules | FAQ's

            Comment


            • Re : Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) FAQs & News

              • Consent of two-thirds of buyers must for changes in building plan: MahaRERA

                MahaRERA member B D Kapadnis directed the builder to pay the complainant 9% simple interest on the Rs 1 crore that was paid in April 2014 till handing over the possession of seven shops in a redevelopment project at D N Nagar in Andheri (W).
                MUMBAI: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has restrained a builder from making any changes to a sanctioned plan without following the provisions laid down under Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) which requires prior consent of two-thirds of the buyers.

                After issuing the order, MahaRERA member B D Kapadnis on January 28, directed the builder to pay the complainant 9% simple interest on the Rs 1 crore that was paid in April 2014 till handing over the possession of seven shops in a redevelopment project at D N Nagar in Andheri (W).

                The complainant, S R Prasad, had booked seven shops for a marine institute in the project and had paid a little over Rs 1 crore or almost 40% of the price and was promised possession by March 31, 2014, said his lawyer Nilesh Gala.

                Complaining that the builder was ‘unilaterally’ trying to modify the plan sanctioned by the BMC, which is in violation of Section 14 of RERA, Prasad sought orders to prevent any changes to plans, fixtures and fittings, and amenities. With possession delayed, Prasad also sought interest on his investment, which the RERA provides for at a rate which is 2% higher than that of State Bank of India.

                But the builder said the delay was for reasons beyond his control. The aviation authority, he said, had refused to give height clearance beyond 56min August 2013.

                The builder said that in 2006, Mhada gave approval for reconstruction of the housing society with 320 members and the commencement certificate was received the next year. Five buildings were demolished, said the builder’s lawyer Vidya Nair, and while one building was vacated, two others weren’t.

                The builder said as the shops could not be constructed, in 2015, the society approached the Bombay high court to seek enforcement of their development agreement.

                In October 2015, the HC referred the society-builder dispute to an arbitrator. The two parties agreed to get a new plan for 104 members after housing 216 others in the six buildings already constructed on the plot. The builder said that he had to pay Rs 80 crore as premium to amend the plans for the two buildings that were not vacated. “The project became commercially unviable due to the delay”, but the builder said he was ready to construct, if funds were available. He even offered to refund the money received for the shops or give two additional shops instead.

                Section 14 of RERA casts a liability on the promoter to complete the project as per the sanctioned plans and not make any alterations to the plan of an apartment or shop without the buyer’s consent. The builder cannot also modify the sanctioned plans for the building and common areas without written consent of two-third of allottees, other than the promoter, said the MahaRERA order that was issued last month.













                Consent of two-thirds of buyers must for changes in building plan: MahaRERA, Real Estate News, ET RealEstate (indiatimes.com)
              Please read IREF rules | FAQ's

              Comment


              • Re : Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) FAQs & News

                MREAT orders T Bhimjyani Realty to pay compensation for project delay

                The date of handing possession of flats is binding on the developer and cannot be changed due to delay in getting approvals, the MahaRera Appellate Tribunal has held while directing a developer to pay interest to 11 flat purchasers.
                MUMBAI: The date of handing possession of flats is binding on the developer and cannot be changed due to delay in getting approvals, the MahaRera Appellate Tribunal has held while directing a developer to pay interest to 11 flat purchasers.

                It decided their appeals against MahaRera’s order in respect of "Neelkanth Woods Olivia” – a project of three wings of 26 floors each - at Majiwade, Thane. As per the agreement for sale (AFS) T Bhimjyani Realty Pvt. Ltd. agreed to deliver possession by November 2017 and May 2018. When the allottees moved RERA for interest due to delay in possession, it directed the developer to hand possession before May 2019 and granted the liberty to demand interest on completion of the project.

                Their advocate Tanuj Lodha argued that they had paid 90 % amount and terrace slab was cast by November 2016. But the developer revised the plan to add 6 additional floors to each wing to build 60-70 flats. It also revised the date of possession to October 2018 and ascribed the delay to pendency of approval to the revised plans in view of change in TDR policy, new CC and HC’s May 2017 order restraining Thane Municipal Corporation from granting new OC/CC due water scarcity in the project area as force majeure factors.

                The developer’s advocate said the plan to add only three extra floors was disclosed in the AFS. He said the delay was due to policy paralysis at government/TMC and HC’s order which was beyond the developer’s control. Hence the extension granted by the Authority is neither irregular nor illegal.

                The Tribunal said there is a definite delay in handing possession and developer could not adhere to the date agreed in AFS. “The date shall remain unchanged and binding on the promoter until any change or revision is expressly in writing,’’ it said, noting that there is no proof that the allottees consented to change the date.

                The Tribunal said any delay in obtaining necessary approvals to amended plans etc will not entitle the developer for concession in the agreed period of possession. The only fact that merits serious consideration is the delay due to HC’s order that remained in force for 5 months.

                “Shortage of water supply can be reckoned as force majeure factor beyond the control of the promoter (developer) for considering extension in possession period. As this ban was imposed before the agreed period of possession, its adverse effect on the completion of the project cannot be denied,’’ members Sumant Kolhe and S S Sandhu said in the December 14, 2020 order. They set aside MahaRERA’s December 3, 2018 order, extended the agreed period of possession by 6 months “while holding the promoter (developer) responsible for paying interest for delay in possession.”

                The developer will pay interest at the rate of SBI’s highest marginal cost of lending rate plus 2 % with effect from June 2018 and December 2018 till the actual date of possession.







                MREAT orders T Bhimjyani Realty to pay compensation for project delay, Real Estate News, ET RealEstate (indiatimes.com)
                Please read IREF rules | FAQ's

                Comment


                • Re : Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) FAQs & News

                  MahaRERA asks Aibani Enterprise to refund Rs 1.6 crore to buyers

                  Altaf Hussain Sarguroh and his sister Rubina Ayaz Kazi had complained against builder Aibani Enterprise for failing to hand over their flats. Altaf said they booked flats in Aibani’s upcoming project, Musfika, in Jogeshwari in June 2013.
                  MUMBAI: Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) ruled in favour of a brother-sister duo, directing the builder to refund them Rs 1.6 crore with interest for failing to hand over possession of two flats in a Jogeshwari project.

                  Madhav Kulkarni, the adjudicating officer, also directed the builder to pay Rs20,000 each to them as cost.

                  Altaf Hussain Sarguroh and his sister Rubina Ayaz Kazi had complained against builder Aibani Enterprise for failing to hand over their flats.

                  Altaf said they booked flats in Aibani’s upcoming project, Musfika, in Jogeshwari in June 2013. Each of them paid Rs 50 lakh and the builder was to give possession by December 2015 for one flat and by December 2016 for the other. The work did not progress till May 2015.

                  On execution of agreement on May 21, 2015, Altaf and Rubina and her husband took a loan of Rs 58.6 lakh from DHFL and paid stamp duty and VAT.

                  The complainant had planned to start earning income from the flats from January 2017 and, hence, demanded Rs40,000 rent per month. The builder agreed to pay every three months from July 2018 till possession was handed over. In April 2018, the builder issued a letter to take fit out possession and pay the balance amount. The builder then applied to the MahaRERA and got an extension till December 2020.

                  Altaf asked the builder to pay the outstanding rent of Rs 5 lakh, but his demand was ignored. With only 40% of the project completed till then, the complainant decided to withdraw from the project and sought refund along with interest at 18% per annum.

                  The authority observed the rent was not paid, and possession of the flats was not given. There is no dispute that the complainant has paid Rs 1.6 crore, therefore the complainant is entitled for refund of this amount with 10.4 % interest.

                  “Complainants received rent, and gave undertakings in 2019 that they would take possession of the flats. So where is the question of any dispute? My client also got extension for completion of project, which the court has not considered so we will appeal against the order,” builder’s lawyer Avinash Pawar said.










                  MahaRERA asks Aibani Enterprise to refund Rs 1.6 crore to buyers, Real Estate News, ET RealEstate (indiatimes.com)
                  Please read IREF rules | FAQ's

                  Comment


                  • Re : Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) FAQs & News

                    MahaRERA orders Shapoorji Pallonji's subsidiary to refund buyers' money

                    MahaRERA directed the development manager, a subsidiary of Shapoorji Pallonji Group, and Nirmal Developers, to refund the money paid by four flat purchasers with 9% interest for delay in construction and possession of flats.
                    MUMBAI: Is the development manager who signs an agreement with a builder for exclusive rights to sell flats liable to pay compensation to the buyer in case of delay or does liability rest only with the builder? A RERA order on March 5 said both were liable in a Mulund project, reports Swati Deshpande.

                    MahaRERA directed the development manager, a subsidiary of Shapoorji Pallonji Group, and Nirmal Developers, to refund the money paid by four flat purchasers with 9% interest for delay in construction and possession of flats.

                    MahaRERA member B D Kapadnis said the DM would be considered a ‘promoter’ of the project along with the builder Nirmal Developers. It directed that the SP subsidiary be added as promoter on the web page of the project within 30 days of the order.

                    Four flat purchasers who had booked apartments in ‘Mumbai Dreams—Olympia C & D’ in Mulund west moved RERA last year alleging delay in construction. One of the complainants said the date of completion was given as June 2019, but was later unilaterally revised to December 2024.

                    Advocates Harshad Bhadbhade, Ashwin Shah and Rajeshwar Deshmukh, representing the buyers, said they had booked the flats with the belief that the DM would construct the building and there would be no delay.

                    The buyers had paid under Rs 20 lakh each so far. They wanted to withdraw from the project and, citing provisions of the Rera Act, claim a refund with interest. Neither sought compensation. But they said the DM was also liable to refund the amounts as a ‘promoter’.

                    Shapoorji Pallonji, through its lawyer Aftab Diamondwala, argued that the company’s subsidiary, Lucrative Properties Pvt Ltd, was only a DM in the project for aiding in the management, planning, supervision of the project and use of their brand name. Hence, he said it was not liable to refund the money. Advocate Vaishali Mohite for Nirmal Developers said the complainants were not ‘allottees’ under the Act and also no agreement for sale had been executed, hence, their plea was “not maintainable”. The builder also submitted that liability to refund would be attracted only on failure to hand over possession on the date mentioned in the registration application.

                    Shapoorji argued the developer was financially liable, adding Lucrative Properties was mentioned as ‘other professional’ on the project web page.

                    The order said, “The terms of agreement…clearly shows the DM has authority to supervise and control all activities of planning, selling, funding and constructing of the project.” Also, if the person who constructs and person who sells are different, they are jointly liable, said Kapadnis in the order. “Lucrative Properties is using brand name and goodwill of Shapoorji Pallonji, collecting money from buyers…and selling units,’’ said the order. It is also sharing 10% revenue. “Therefore, I hold that it comes under the definition of the promoter,” said Kapadnis.












                    MahaRERA orders Shapoorji Pallonji's subsidiary to refund buyers' money, Real Estate News, ET RealEstate (indiatimes.com)
                    Please read IREF rules | FAQ's

                    Comment


                    • Re : Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) FAQs & News

                      MahaRERA orders Kohinoor City's promoter to pay buyer 9% interest till possession

                      According to the complaint, Deepak Mandlik had booked a flat in the project on December 9, 2014. Though the promoter had agreed to hand over possession by December 31, 2016, the project is still under construction.
                      MUMBAI: MahaRERA in a recent order directed Unmesh Joshi, promoter of Kohinoor City at Kurla, to pay a home buyer 9% interest on the amount paid by him till possession of the flat was handed over.

                      The complainant had booked the flat in 2014 and had paid over Rs1 crore. The developer had initially promised possession by 2016, but later revised it to June 2021. MahaRERA member BD Kapadnis rejected the contention of the developer that the complainant was not entitled to seek interest for delayed possession as an agreement for sale had not been executed.

                      According to the complaint, Deepak Mandlik had booked a flat in the project on December 9, 2014. Though the promoter had agreed to hand over possession by December 31, 2016, the project is still under construction. Mandlik paid over Rs1 crore of the total Rs1.74 crore, but no agreement for sale was executed by the developer.

                      The home buyer, represented by advocate Anil D Souza, approached MahaRERA seeking an interest on his investment from 2016 till the time of getting possession of the flat on account of delayed possession under Section 18 of RERA and also sought execution of an agreement for sale.

                      The promoter, represented by Akshay Bidaye, contended that as per the current status, the project would be completed by June 30, 2021 and also claimed that the complainant had not come forward to execute the agreement for sale. It was also pointed out that Rs 45 lakh was outstanding dues toward the flat. It was also argued that since the agreement for sale had not been executed, the complainant was not entitled to seek interest for delayed possession.

                      However, Kapadnis observed that any aggrieved person can file the complaint under section 31 of RERA. He also said the allottees had paid over Rs1crore, which is more than 10% of the total consideration and Section 13 of RERA lays down that the promoter is not entitled to receive more than 10% of the total amount without first executing and registering the agreement for sale. The developer’s demand for interest on accrued arrears was rejected.

                      Kapadnis directed the promoter to execute the agreement for sale and pay the complainant interest from January 1, 2017, besides Rs 20,000 toward costs.











                      MahaRERA orders Kohinoor City's promoter to pay buyer 9% interest till possession, Real Estate News, ET RealEstate (indiatimes.com)
                      Please read IREF rules | FAQ's

                      Comment

                      Tags: Maharashtra
                      Have any questions or thoughts about this?
                      Working...
                      X