The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a complaint filed by Umesh Ramesh Jain, a registered real estate agent, against Classic Promoters and Builders Pvt. Ltd. The complaint sought the payment of brokerage fees for introducing buyers to the company’s residential project “World One Solitaire World” in Bibwewadi, Pune.
The complainant, Jain, claimed that he had facilitated the sale of 10 flats in the project but had only received payment for one flat, with the remaining nine still pending. Despite the respondent’s acknowledgment of the bookings—evidenced by TDS deductions for three of the flats—Jain contended that the company had failed to pay his rightful commission, prompting him to seek MahaRERA’s intervention.
The dispute stemmed from the fact that the complainant, though registered with MahaRERA as a real estate agent, was not listed as an official agent for the project. While the complainant argued that he had submitted the necessary documentation and legal notices demanding payment, the respondent denied any contractual obligation to pay him for the other flats, stating that only one booking had been made through Jain’s efforts.
Key Points of the Case:
- Jain alleged that despite acknowledging TDS payments for three flats, Classic Promoters failed to settle brokerage payments for the remaining flats.
- The respondent argued that the complainant had not been a registered agent for the project, and that the TDS payments were erroneously credited to Jain’s account due to a technical error.
- Both parties presented contradictory evidence, with Jain providing invoices and the respondent denying the claim of any official sales through Jain’s introduction.
Legal Standpoint:
The MahaRERA, after reviewing both parties’ submissions, concluded that there was no explicit provision under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) that grants the authority to adjudicate or enforce brokerage payments. The relevant sections of RERA focus primarily on the registration and regulation of real estate agents and promoters, but do not provide a legal framework for resolving commission disputes.
In its order, the MahaRERA noted that while real estate agents are entitled to commissions under their individual agreements with promoters, RERA itself does not mandate the payment of brokerage fees or interest in cases like these. Thus, the complaint was deemed “not maintainable” under the provisions of RERA.
RERA’s Jurisdiction and Limitations:
The MahaRERA emphasized that its functions under Section 34 of the RERA Act focus on regulating projects, promoters, and agents, ensuring compliance with obligations, and maintaining public records. However, it clarified that the RERA does not extend to resolving financial disputes related to brokerage payments unless they involve issues of non-compliance with regulatory obligations.
Dismissal of the Complaint:
With no specific provisions in RERA to support the complainant’s claims for brokerage fees and interest, the MahaRERA dismissed the complaint, stating that no further hearings were required. However, it clarified that the complainant, Umesh Ramesh Jain, is still free to pursue his claims through other legal avenues if he wishes.
The dismissal brings attention to the limitations of RERA in handling commission-related disputes and underscores the need for real estate agents and promoters to have clear, written agreements outlining brokerage terms to avoid such conflicts.
Takeaway for Real Estate Professionals:
The ruling serves as a reminder to real estate agents to ensure that their role in the sale of property is well-documented and that they are officially recognized as agents for a project. It also highlights the importance of having formal agreements in place to outline payment terms and avoid future disputes over commission claims.
Also Read: MahaRERA Adjourns Complaint Against Karrm Infrastructure Amid Insolvency Proceedings
