All forum members:

Would like to know your opinion on my observations regarding the agreement to sale document that I came across. This is for the property being developed by Pune's well known and highly regarded (for what :bab (38):) builder.

Though I am not able to reproduce exact content verbatim this is the gist of it

1> Purchaser owns only the flat # and parking area if applicable. His rights remain only on these areas *only*

2> All common areas including staircases, gardens, passages, terraces, other developed areas for enjoyment for the purchaser and not developed area will remain with the builder and will be classified as common area. Builder at his own discretion can allot to any party of his choice, with none of the home owners having absolutely no choice of objection.

3> Builder also can allocate the facilities to be used by other flat owners residing in the property of builder abutting to this property should something come up in the future; without any objection of any kind from the purchaser.

4> Builder and developer will enter into deed of condominium. (No word about conveyance of land to the co. op. hsc society)

5> If on the developed land if in future any more FSI becomes available then not only builder gets to use this FSI but he can utilize any RCC structure, common areas, blocks etc etc of the existing construction towards utilization of that area.

6> All the charges/levies etc etc are to be borne by purchaser and association of condominium towards that effect.

7> Purchaser is indemnifying builder and keep him indemnified (from what I do not recall exactly)

If this is the wording of the agreement from so called prime and trusted builder, then I can not even begin to imagine what would lower grade builders have to offer or am I in for pleasant surprise.

It made me really sad to this kind of wordings. So not only bulider is ra*&ng purchaser here during selling him flat, with all his profit etc, but he can potentially keep purchaser doing so with the kind of legal protection he possesses by making such agreements.

1> Is this quite common practice?

2> Is almost each and every agreement being done having this kind of wordings?

3> Which builder in Pune, nowadays, does proper conveyance and hands over land to the co-op-hsc society and relinquishes full control from the land and other common areas?

Appreciate all the noise on this topic

Read more
4 Replies
Sort by :Filter by :
  • I feel all the agreements talk on same line if not verbatim. See few more below- every statement safegaurds only builder's interest.

    i) the collections towards the Corpus Fund shall be deposited and
    maintained in a separate bank account and the same shall be invested in such
    manner as the Promoters may deem fit provided such investments get a
    minimum return equivalent to the interest at the bank rate on Fixed Deposits,
    and the Purchaser/s shall have no right to question or dispute the same,
    ii) the income of the Corpus Fund shall be utilized towards the outgoings,
    costs, charges and expenses and incidental to the services to be provided by
    the Promoters by way of management, upkeep, security and maintenance of
    the said Lands and the said Wing/s and amenity areas,
    iii) The Promoters shall be entitled but not bound to use the principal
    amount collected from the Purchaser/s towards the Corpus Fund to meet the
    shortfall in the payment of any expenses and outgoings,
    iii)the Promoters shall be entitled to sell the set back terrace/open terrace
    or any portion/s thereof in any part of the said Wing/s to any person/s of their
    choice on „ownership‟ basis like other Premises for use

    iv)the Promoters shall be at liberty and entitled to complete any
    part/portion/floor of the said Wing/s and apply for and obtain part-Occupation
    Certificate thereof, and give possession thereof to the acquirers of such
    premises, and the Purchaser/s herein shall not object to the same; in such
    event, however, if the Purchaser/s take/s possession of his/her/their Premises in
    such part-completed part/portion/floor and the remaining work is carried on by
    the Promoters or its agents or contractors with the Purchaser/s occupying the
    Premises, his/her/their will not obstruct or object to the carrying on of such
    works even if the same shall cause any nuisance or annoyance to him/her/them,

  • Originally Posted by bhuraj
    I feel all the agreements talk on same line if not verbatim. See few more below- every statement safegaurds only builder's interest.

    Two technical problems I see in this whole scenario.

    1> Builders apply loading onto builtup/carpet area with the justification to cover for the cost of the amenities and common areas.

    But technically for all practical purposes if builder is whole and sole arbiter for them does that justification not fall apart. Purchaser anyways not (albeit collectively) owning these things, then why charge him

    2> Builder wants to perpetuate not only ownership but also future development and associated rights onto the land/property at large. Which is big concern.

    These two things actually change the definition of what purchaser is owning fundamentally IMHO

    I am just wondering in civilized society governed by rule of law and equality and all those ideals, should there not be a non partisan, unprejudiced, objective mechanism/system to enforce right of both consumer and producer? Quite frankly such a hugely lop sided content of the legal document looks like a throwback in ancient time.
  • Looks like GK Builders agreement :)
    I am not a fan of apartment formation. Co-operative Society formation is the right thing to go for. Atleast things are in control of the society and the builder has no role to plan after the society is handed over and conveyance is completed.
    I suggest you consult a lawyer to get some guidance.
  • CommentQuote