The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has pulled up a builder for failing to hand over possession of a flat allotted to the buyer in 2010. The authority directed the builder to hand over the possession without raising any further demand towards the consideration of the flat.
Read More: Unlocking Opportunities: The rise of real estate in Tier 2 & Tier 3 cities
In 2010, Upasana Bajaj purchased a flat, two parking spaces, and exclusive amenities from the construction firm Lokhandwala Kataria in their project Minerva for a total consideration of Rs 4.25 crore. An allotment letter was issued to Bajaj, after she paid Rs 81.2 lakh. “The complainants purchased the flat for a total consideration of Rs4,25,55,000 and paid an amount of Rs3,31,80,000 to the respondent (builder) towards the payment of the flat cost,” the order copy reads.
Further intimating about the delay, the complainant in December 2017 received a demand letter after a lapse of almost three years. “The respondent addressed an email dated February 1, 2018, whereby the respondent itself changed the possession day to December 2018,” the complainant says.
Read More: Property brokerage firm InvestoXpert revenue up 56% in FY24 on better sales
Regardless of several promises, possession was not granted, which led to disputes over payment schedules and cancellation notices from the builder.
On August 16, 2018, Bajaj filed a complaint before MahaRERA seeking reliefs under RERA, including possession and interest for delayed possession.
Meanwhile, in January 2023, the builders demanded money from the homebuyer for allegedly violating the consent terms. The builder did not fulfil their obligations and defaulted on loans, leading to multiple NCLT proceedings against them.
Read More: Greater Noida Authority warns developers to execute registries of flats or face action
Advocate Nilesh Gala, appearing on behalf of Bajaj, said, “MahaRERA took cognizance of the complaint only after the Bombay High Court directed MahaRERA to consider the consent terms whilst deciding the complaint. In the earlier round complaint was settled by filing consent terms. In subsequent proceedings MahaRERA refused to accept the same whereby the complaint had to knock the Bombay High Court doors, which directed MahaRERA to decide the present complaint in a time-bound manner and keeping the consent terms in mind.”
The authority observed that the builder, by signing the consent terms, agreed not only to compensate Bajaj but also to pay additional compensation at a rate of Rs 2.91 lakh per month.
Therefore, the authority directed the builder to hand over possession after the execution of the registered agreement for sale, without further demanding more payment for the flat.
