MahaRERA in its order found the the conduct of the complainants against the builder as highly objectionable who were trying to take benefits by using MahaRERA as a tool. Finally the complaints were dismissed as it lacked merit.
By Varun Singh
MahaRERA (Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority) the tool meant to help real estate secot gave justice to a builder, as it didn’t find merits in the complaints against the developer.
Two complaints were filed against a developer named Ayyappa Developers Pvt Ltd by two buyers, who had bought two shops. The project regarding which the complaint was made is Celestial Heights, located at Borivali.
The complainants had alleged that there was a delay in possession by the developer in handing over the two shops to them. They sought relief from MahaRERA and asked that they be paid interest and comopensation for the delayed possession.
The parties were heard on several ocassions, and both of them had asked for time to settle the matter amicably. However, in spite of meetings they couldn’t reach at any agreeable terms. Hence, MahaRERA decided to hear the mater on merits.
The complainants had claimed that they bought two commercial shops, in the project for a total consideration of Rs 2.98 crore and Rs 2.67 crore respecitely. The devloper had executed an agreement for sale with them on December 19, 2014.
According to the sale agreement, the develoepr was to hand over the shops on or before February 2017. The complaiannts alleged that they have paid substantial amount to the developer, the developer has not completed the project and not obntained Occupation Certificate for their shops and therefore, they cannot resale their shops.
The complainants further alleged that the project is standstill as on date. Hence, they filed the complaints with MahaRERA seeking interest and compensation for delay in possession.
The developer on the other hand resisted the claim of the complainants by raising various defenses. The developer stated that the present complaints are filed on the basis of flase facts and by supression of facts.
The developer alleged that the complainants had already taken possession of the their shops on August 24, 2015, which was before the agreed possession date. At the time of the purchase of the shops, the developer claims that he had given complete inspection of all permissions obtained from the competent authority including the plans. Developer further claimed that the agreed date of possession mentioned in the agreement was tentative and he performed his part and handed over the possession of the shops to the complainants beore the date of possession.
The developer further alleged that, after taking possession of the shops, the complainants even started utilising them for commercial gains. He cited two examples, first, the developer said that the complainants gave the shops on rental basis to a sports club’s group as election office from November 2016 to January 2017. Thereafter they offered the said premises to a shoe mart for carrying out its exhibition cum sale 2017.
The developer submitted photogrpahs of the commercial premises used for commercial gains to MahaRERA. Based on his evidences he asked MahaRERA to dismiss the complaints.
The developer also alleged that he because of bad market condition in the real estate sector borrowed loan of Rs 1 crore against which he had issued a promiossiry noted and a security cheque. However, the complainants intentianlly deposited the security cheque and issued notice under section 138 of the Negoitable Instruments Act.
The complainanat in the complaints filed with MahaRERA admitted that full payment and acknowleded the settlement of the loan. The developer alleged that, however, on the other hand they have issued notice of cheque bouncing of security cheque which was obligated to return to the developer upon settlement of the loan amount. Based on this too the developer asked MahaRERA to dismiss the complaints.
Dr Vijay Satbir Singh, Member, MahaRERA, who was hearing the complaints examined the arguements by both parties. He stated that the possession of the commercial shops have been given to the complainants and till date occupancy certificate has not been obtained for the commercial shops of the complaints.
Still the same has been used for commercial purpose. Singh noted that the complainants have not submitted any cogent documentary proofs on record of MahaRERA to show that the commercial premises have not been used for any commercial gain as alleged by the developer.
Finally MahaRERA found that the conduct of the complainants shows that theya re trying to get dual benefits under teh provision of RERA by using MahaRERA as a tool. Such a conduct of the complainants is highly objectional and reasonable and the MahaRERA has taken serious note about it.
Singh finally dismissing the complaints stated that the complainants are not entitled to any relief under the provisions of RERA.
Also Read: No Agreement Of Sale Means No Refund, says MahaRERA
