On October 17, 2024, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) issued an order concerning a long-standing dispute between Rajendra Bhabutmal Shah (the complainant) and Shatrughan Bhanudas Chavare (the respondent). This case revolves around a residential flat in a project registered under MahaRERA, with registration number P52600000096.

Background of the Complaint

The complainant, Shah, is the promoter of a real estate project, while Chavare is the allottee who entered into an Agreement to Sale on December 31, 2014, for a flat priced at ₹20,40,000. At the time of the agreement, Chavare paid an earnest amount of ₹2,08,000, with the remainder due in stages as construction progressed. Despite repeated demand notices from Shah, Chavare failed to fulfill his payment obligations, leading to the complaint being filed on May 12, 2022.

Hearing Details

The hearing was scheduled on multiple occasions, with the last occurring on August 13, 2024. Notably, Chavare did not attend any hearings, prompting MahaRERA to proceed with the case ex-parte against him on May 30, 2024. His absence raised concerns about his commitment to the agreement, as he did not contest Shah’s claims.

Key Findings

  1. Payment Discrepancies: The complaint highlighted inconsistencies in the total sale consideration and the earnest money paid, which varied across documents. The registered agreement was treated as the primary reference.
  2. Legal Obligations: The order emphasized the responsibilities of the allottee under Section 19 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Chavare’s failure to make timely payments constituted a breach of these obligations.
  3. Claim for Relief: Given the established facts and the respondent’s absence, the authority found in favor of the complainant, affirming his right to claim the outstanding sale consideration along with interest.

Final Order

MahaRERA ordered Chavare to pay the outstanding amount of ₹16,32,080, along with interest calculated at the State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2%. He is required to make this payment within 30 days from the date of the order.

In the event of non-payment, Shah is entitled to cancel the Agreement to Sale and refund the earnest money after deducting applicable dues, thereby allowing him to resell the flat to a third party.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of adhering to contractual obligations in real estate transactions. MahaRERA’s decision serves as a reminder for all parties involved in such agreements to fulfill their commitments to avoid legal repercussions. As the industry continues to evolve, regulatory measures like these are crucial in safeguarding the interests of both promoters and allottees.

Also Read: MahaRERA Temporarily Reverts to Old Website Amid Technical Challenges

You May Also Like

CIDCO Begins Process to Develop India’s First Iconic Multi-Purpose Indoor Live Entertainment Arena in Navi Mumbai

CIDCO has launched the process to develop India’s first iconic multi-purpose indoor live entertainment arena in Navi Mumbai by issuing an EOI. Inspired by Madison Square Garden and The O₂ Arena, the venue will host 20,000–25,000 attendees and redefine India’s entertainment landscape.

MMR Homebuyers Prefer Smaller Homes: Report

Smaller sized units remain the preferred choice for MMR homebuyers, with approx.…

🏛 Bombay High Court Slams Dr. Mumtaz Khoja for Suppressing Facts in SRA Case; Dismisses Plea, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost

The Bombay High Court dismissed Dr. Mumtaz Khoja’s review petition in an SRA allotment case, imposed ₹5 lakh cost, ordered property recovery if unpaid, and initiated contempt proceedings for misleading the court.

Residential rentals surge in Pune as employees return to office

Pune residential market is seeing a change, the rentals are surging say…