MahaRERA till date has revoked the registration of five projects that were registered with the authority. Thus proving that it is not a toothless tiger and bites as per the need.

By Varun Singh

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has revoked the registration of five projects that were registered with the housing authority.

According to data accessed by SquareFeatIndia MahaRERA using its powers to safeguard the interest of homebuyers has acted. against five projects.

The authority in the case of these five projects has revoked their registration. or made them Ab Initio Void.

The five. projects are spread across Mumbai and Pune. The names of all the five projects have been published by MahaRERA on it website and can be read here.

Adv Sunnil Kewalramani, said, “MahaRERA is not a toothless tiger. It has wide powers under Section 7 of RERA Act for Revocation of project registration. This revocation of project by MahaRERA will have a deterrent effect on Developers, who do not comply with the provisions of RERA Act and Maharashtra Rules made there under.”

What is Section 7 of RERA?

Section 7 of the Act reads as thus: Revocation of registration
(1) The Authority may, on receipt of a complaint or suo motu in this behalf or on the recommendation of the competent authority, revoke the registration granted under section 5, after being satisfied that—
(a) the promoter makes default in doing anything required by or under this Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder;
(b) the promoter violates any of the terms or conditions of the approval given by the competent authority;
(c) the promoter is involved in any kind of unfair practice or irregularities.

Explanation —For the purposes of this clause, the term “unfair practice means” a practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale or development of any real estate project adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely: —

(A) the practice of making any statement, whether in writing or by visible representation which, —
(i) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard or grade;
(ii) (ii) represents that the promoter has approval or affiliation which such promoter does
not have;
(iii) (iii) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the services;

(B) the promoter permits the publication of any advertisement or prospectus whether in any newspaper or otherwise of services that are not intended to be offered;
(d) the promoter indulges in any fraudulent practices.

(2) The registration granted to the promoter under section 5 shall not be revoked unless the Authority has given to the promoter not less than thirty days’ notice, in writing, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the registraton, and has considered any cause shown by the promoter within the period of that notice against the proposed revocation.

(3) The Authority may, instead of revoking the registration under sub-section (1), permit it to remain in force subject to such further terms and conditions as it thinks fit to impose in the interest of the allottees, and any such terms and conditions so imposed shall be binding upon the promoter.

(4) The Authority, upon the revocation of the registration, —
(a) shall debar the promoter from accessing its website in relation to that project and specify his name in the list of defaulters and display his photograph on its website and also inform the other Real Estate Regulatory Authority in other States and Union territories about such revocation or registration;
(b) shall facilitate the remaining development works to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of section 8;
(c) shall direct the bank holding the project back account, specified under subclause (D) of clause (I) of sub-section (2) of section 4, to freeze the account, and thereafter take such further necessary actions, including consequent de-freezing of the said account, towards facilitating the remaining development works in accordance with the provisions of section 8;
(d) may, to protect the interest of allottees or in the public interest, issue such directions as it may deem necessary.

Also Read: Bhushan Kumar Of T-Series Paid Rs 167 Crore For Juhu Bungalow

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like

FIR against Top Mumbai Developer By Another Developer, Read Both The Sides Of The Story

An FIR has been registered against directors and other representatives of Pashmina…

Homebuyers here’s some bad news for you

Dear homebuyers here’s some bad news for all of you, and I…

MahaRERA Asks Developer to Pay Interest.

The Developer Was Found Guilty By MahaRERA Of Unfair Trade Practices By…

Real Estate Pins Hope on Union Budget 2022-23

By Anuj Puri The residential sector witnessed a strong comeback in 2021,…