By Varun Singh

Despite the rough pandemic ride and construction costs further inflated by the Russia-Ukraine war, the top 7 cities have further reduced their burden of stuck/delayed homes. As per the latest ANAROCK data, as many as 36,830 languishing homes were completed in these cities between January 2022 and May 2022.

By May 2022-end, approx. 4.80 lakh units (launched in 2014 or before) – worth over INR 4.48 lakh crore – remain stuck in various construction stages across these cities. By 31st December 2021, the market was saddled with approx. 5.17 lakh languishing homes worth approx. INR 4.84 lakh crore.

With approx. 16,750 units, NCR saw the highest number of stuck units completed – from 2,57,360 in December 2021 to 2,40,610 by May 2022-end. Currently, NCR’s cumulative burden of stuck units exceeds 1.81 lakh crore.

“Developers remain committed to completing their projects and are capitalizing on the ongoing demand for ready-to-move homes,” says Prashant Thakur, Sr. Director & Head – Research, ANAROCK Group.

He further said, “What is notable is that they are maintaining momentum despite considerable headwinds from increased input costs, which have gone through the roof in the last five months. The fact that housing demand has remained strong in last two years obviously helps. Several larger developers as well as the SWAMIH fund and NBCC have taken over stuck/delayed inventories and are seeing them to completion.”

City-wise Breakup
Cumulatively, the top 7 cities currently have approx. 4,79,940 stuck/delayed housing units worth over INR 4,48,129 crore. NCR and MMR together hold a 77% ‘majority share’, while the southern metros Bengaluru, Chennai, and Hyderabad have just 9%. Pune has an approx. 9% share, while Kolkata accounts for a minuscule 5% overall share.

• NCR saw the maximum completion of approx. 16,750 units. Currently, the region has approx. 2,40,610 stuck/delayed units worth over INR 1,81,410 Cr. In December 2021, NCR had approx. 2,57,360 stuck/delayed units worth INR 1,94,034 Cr.
• MMR comes a distant second with 1,28,870 stuck/delayed housing stock worth approx. INR 1,84,226 Cr. In December 2021, the region had approx. 1,34,170 languishing units worth approx. INR 1,91,807 Cr. – thus, 5,300 units were completed in this period.
• Bengaluru saw over 3,960 units completed in the period. Currently, the city has approx. 26,030 stuck/delayed units worth over INR 28,072 Cr. In 2021-end, it had approx. 29,990 stuck/delayed units worth INR 32,345 Cr.
• In Hyderabad, approx. 1,710 units were completed in this period. The city currently has approx. 11,450 stuck/delayed units worth over INR 11,310 Cr while in December 2021, the burden was approx. 13,160 units worth INR 12,995 Cr.
• Chennai gave a stellar completion performance with approx. 41% of previous stuck/delayed units completed in this period –from 8,870 in 2021-end to approx. 5,190 by May 2022-end. Chennai currently boasts of the lowest burden of stuck units among the top 7 cities with just 5,190 units worth approx. INR 3,731 Cr.
• Pune saw approx. 3,850 stuck/delayed units get completed in the period. By May 2022-end, the city had approx. 44,250 units worth about INR 27,533 Cr. In 2021-end, the city was saddled with approx. 48,100 stuck homes worth INR 35,220 Cr.
• Kolkata saw approx. 1,580 homes completed in this period. Currently, the city has approx. 23,540 stuck/delayed units worth over INR 11,847 Cr. In 2021-end, there were approx. 25,120 stuck/delayed units worth INR 12,639 Cr.

It also should be noted that 1.49 lakh homes were completed in the last 9 months.

On looking further back, it emerges that more stuck/delayed homes get completed between August 2021 and May 2022.
• In August 2021, approx. 6.38 lakh units (launched in 2014 or before) were stuck in the top 7 cities; by May 2022-end, this had reduced to approx. 4.80 lakh units
• NCR saw maximum completions with approx. 88,000 units reaching the finish line; close to 2,40,610 units worth INR 1,81,410 Cr still stuck/delayed
• MMR came a distant 2nd with approx. 20,750 units completed, followed by Bengaluru with 15,750 units

Also Read: Residential demand in Mumbai increases 15.2 percent

The post NCR leads delayed homes list where does MMR stand? appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (MahaRERA) has been established to adjudicate and for speedy dispute redressal.

Section 31 of the Act, enables any aggrieved person to file a complaint with MahaRERA, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules and regulations.

MahaRERA shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, the MahaRERA shall have powers to regulate its own procedure.

The authority noticed that the objective of the Act of having an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal is not achieved in letter and spirit.

Another aspect the circular issued by the authority states, that there is another factor that retards/slows down the adjudication mechanism in speedy dispute redressal namely that documents on which parties rely upon/ place reliance in a complaint as filed is/are not uploaded/not made available to the adjudicating machinery.

Considering that Coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to remain a major public health hazard it is necessary to reiterate the mode of hearing of Complaints.

In view of these aspects MahaRERA has laid down procedure in the matter of grant of adjournments when complaints are listed for hearings before the respective Bench of MahaRERA as well as in the matter of submission of documents on which parties rely upon/ place reliance in the complaints as filed and the mode of hearing of complaints:

Adjournments:
(a) No adjournment shall be granted more than two times to a Party.
(b) No adjournment shall be granted at the request of the party except where there is/ are compelling circumstances or where circumstances are beyond the control of the party.
(c) The fact that the legal practitioner is engaged in another court shall not be a ground for adjournment.
(d) Where the illness of a legal practitioner is put forward as a ground for
adjournment, no adjournment shall be granted unless the party applying for adjournment is able to satisfactorily explain that it could not have engaged another legal practitioner in time.
(e) Excuses such as (i) “l have been briefed in the matter recently/ yesterday
in the morning” or (ii) “I am not prepared/ready with the arguments in the
matter” or for such other reasons, shall be no grounds for adjournment.
(f) Where sufficient cause is not shown for grant of adjournment, hearing of the complaints shall be proceeded with.

Submission of Convenience Document set
(a) In addition to the Complainant and Respondent filing / uploading his/her complaint reply/written submission/ written arguments/rejoinders/
synopsis as the case may be and uploading the documents on which reliance is placed in the matter, a hard copy of a “Convenience Document” shall also be submitted. This would be a set consisting of not more than 20 Pages, ie only the relevant pages of the documents required / necessary for deciding the issues raised in the complaints along with the copy of the
complaint / reply / written submission / written arguments/rejoinders / synopsis shall be submitted at the head office of MahaRERA situated at 6th and 7th floor, House Fin Bhavan, Plot No. C-21, E-Block, Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051.
(b) The first document, in the “Convenience Document” set, shall be the
Vakalatnama or the Authority Letter indicating that the complainant has
authorized the person named in the said document to plead his/her case.
(c) The above shalt be applicable to all complaints ie old complaints filed as
well as new complaints when filed.
(d) Hard copies of the “Convenience Document” set shall be indexed and
paginated and submitted at the address given in 2(a), at least 1 week before the complaint is listed for hearing.
(e) The “Convenience Document” shall be referred to by the party in person, chartered accountant, company secretary, cost accountant, legal practitioner/ counsel while relying on documents, during arguments.
(f) The last two lines in the column “Description” at “Step 1” and “Step 2” under the column “Steps” at “Annexure A – Standard Operating Procedure for online hearing through video conferencing” in Circular No. 27/2020 dated June 12, 2020 shall be replaced with what is stated in Clause 2(a) above.

Mode of Hearing of Complaints:
(a) Hearing of Complaints shall continue online through video conferencing
(b) Only in cases where the respective bench of MahaRERA is of the opinion that in a given complaint, physical hearing is necessary for the purposes of deciding the said complaint then in that event of hearing of such complaint/s shall be taken up in physical hearing subject to all concerned ie. the parties appearing in person and / or the authorized representative representing the parties in the complaints following the Covid 19 norms as prescribed by Government of India/ State of Maharashtra.

Also Read: Next MahaRERA Date to be Announced in Open Court

The post This is how MahaRERA plans to deliver Justice fast appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

A developer was asked by MahaRERA to to refund the entire amount paid by the homebuyer for delay in handing over possession of the flat.

Homebuyer Violet Justin Arokiaswamy approached MAhaRERA against developer Unique Multicon India Pvt. Ltd seeking directions from MahaRERA to the developer to refund/repay the advance amount paid along with interest under the provisions of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.

The project in concern here is “Palazzo Greens” situated at Pune, The homebuyer was also seeking compensation for breach of contract by the developer.

The homebuyer complained that she entered into a registered agreement to sale with the promoter on January 7, 2016, in respect of the said flat in the respondent’s project and paid booking amount of Rs 1 lakh. Thereafter she paid further an amount of Rs.9.54 lakh to the builder, for which the developer has duly issued the payment receipts.

According to the said agreement clause number 14 the builder was liable to handover possession of the said flat to her within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of agreement with grace period of 6 months, which ended on January 7, 2019, and still there is no substantial development of the said project and the promoter allegedly promised to deliver the possession of flat by January 7, 2019. Further there was no further extension of date by 6 months mutually agreed which would still end on July 7, 2019.

The homebuyer didn’t wish to continue in the project and claims refund of amount paid along with interest since the promoter has failed to handover timely possession of flat due to slow progress of the project and she seeks refund on the grounds of delay.

The homebuyer stated to MahaRERA that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of contract but promoter has failed to fulfil its promise.

The homebuyer claims that the developer, has also failed to intimate the progress of project and demand the consideration i.e. slab-wise payment and therefore the complainant claims refund of the amount paid along with interest and compensation as per provisions of RERA.

MahaRERA also noted that, the developer, didn’t bother to file its reply to this complaint, though the complaint is visible to the developer in its project web-page.

During the course of hearing, the developer was specifically directed by MahaRERA, to upload its reply in digital form by evening of May 3, 2021. However, the developer again failed to comply with the directions. “It shows that the respondent is not willing to contest this complaint. Hence, the MahaRERA has no other alternative but to proceed with the matter ex-parte against the respondent on merits,” noted Dr Vijay Satbir Singh, Member- I, MahaRERA.

Further from the webpage information uploaded on MahaRERA website by the developer, it is seen that the respondent has registered two wings in this project viz wing A and B and it has obtained part completion certificate to wing A on 29-07-2020.

However no completion certificate has been obtained for the building in which the complainant’s flat is situated nor any form 4 is uploaded on MahaRERA website. It shows the project is still incomplete and prima facie the developer has violated the provision of section 18 of the RERA.

Singh in the order said, “In view of above facts (delay) and discussion, the respondent is directed to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant towards the consideration of the said flat along with interest at the rate of SBI’s Highest Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% as prescribed under the provisions of section-18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Rules made there under from the date of payment till the actual realisation of the said amount to the complainant.”

Also Read: Builder Takes MHADA To MahaRERA, Gets No Relief

The post Delay in Possession, Builder to refund entire amount appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), was brought in to bring in transparency in the real estate sector.

In Maharashtra, the RERA authority is called MahaRERA and it is one of the most efficient in the country.

Recently when a homebuyer approached the state’s RERA authority he was denied relief.

Homebuyer Kishor Kotkar approached MahaRERA against builder Karda Constructions Ltd, for a project located in Borivali.

The homebuyer was seeking possession of his flat and interest from the builder for delayed possession.

The homebuyer had booked the flat on August 24, 2019. The registered agreement for sale was entered into between him and the builder on June 16, 2020.

According to the agreement, the builder was liable to handover possession of the said flat to him on or before December 31, 2020.

The homebuyer further stated that out of total consideration amount of Rs. 34,51,000 till date, he has paid an amount of Rs. 15 lakh and the remaining dues has not been paid since the possession has not been handed over to him.

Hence, he prayed for possession and interest for the delayed possession under section 18 of the RERA.

Dr Vijay Satbir Singh, MahaRERA, Member 1, while hearing the case stated, “During the course of hearing, the complainant himself has admitted that he has withheld the payment of outstanding dues to the respondent since it has not handed over possession of the said flat to him.”

Singh further stated, that in this regard, the MahaRERA is of the view that as per the provisions of section 19(6) of the RERA, the complainant allottee is liable to make timely payment as per the schedule mentioned in the agreement for sale signed by both the parties.

The order futher noted, “Since, the complainant himself has admitted his own default in timely payment. The MahaRERA therefore is of the view that the complainant (homebuyer) is not entitled to seek any relief under section 18 of the RERA.

Moreover, from the webpage information uploaded by the developer on MahaRERA webpage, it appears that the revised completion date of the project is 30-06-2021. Hence, the builder is bound by the said date of completion.

Finally Singh ordered, “In view of these facts, the MahaRERA directs the builder to complete the project and handover possession of the flat to the complainant (homebuyer) on or before June 30, 2021 by obtaining occupancy certificate.

Failing which the homebuyer would be entitled to seek interest for the delayed possession from July 1, 2021 for every month till the actual date of possession on the actual amount paid by the complainant at the prevailing rate of Marginal Cost of fund based Lending Rate (MCLR) of SBI plus 2% as prescribed under the provisions of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Rules made there under.

The MahaRERA further directed the homebuyer that he is also liable to make the timely payments to the builder in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale signed by both the parties.

Also Read: Parking Issue: Shift The Wall Orders MahaRERA

The post Must Read: Why RERA Denied Relief To This Homebuyer? appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

A developer who is willing to refund the amount paid by homebuyer stated that he couldn’t because of pandemic.

The developer said that due to the pandemic he’s unable to get funds from investors. He sought four to six months to refund the amount.

The case is of a project named Anandgram Paud Phase II in Pune, of developer Vastusodh Realty LLP.

Homebuyer Dilip Karnataki, complained against the builder to MahaRERA seeking refund of the amount he paid.

The homebuyer claimed that after he booked the flat, builder didn’t execute the agreement nor handed over possession till date.

The project according to the homebuyer is stopped and the builder hasn’t refund him the full amount.

The builder told MahaRERA that since he couldn’t get the environment clearance the project didn’t start.

The builder even informed that the has already paid the homebuyer 60% of the amount received.

The developer stated that he was willing to refund the remaining amount too. But due to pandemic he was unable to get funds from investors.

Dr Vijay Satbir Singh, Member I of MahaRERA, noted that the developer failed to complete the project and hand over the possession.

However, since the parties have never entered into an agreement for sale, hence the homebuyer was not entitled to claim interest under section 18 of RERA.

Singh in his order stated, “The developer has also refunded 60% of the amount paid by the complainant and has also shown its willingness to refund the balance amount to the complainant. The respondent has also submitted an undertaking to that effect on record of MahaRERA.”

Disposing the case, Singh following the principle of natural justice, directed the developer to refund the remaining amount to the homebuyer.

The builder was also allowed to use the moratorium period as per the MahaRERA circulars.

The Coronavirus pandemic has impacted all the sectors, but real estate is one of the worst hit. In many cases projects have come to standstill as construction workers left for their native and many haven’t yet returned.

Many developers are also facing liquidity crisis because of low sales too, all this clubbed together the real estate sector today is finding itself in a very bad shape.

Also Read: HDIL Homebuyers Get No Relief From MahaRERA

The post Pandemic Reason For Delay In Refund: Builder appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

This story is of a lot of interest for homebuyers, who had booked homes under the subvention scheme.

Subvention schemes are those, where a builder pays interest on the home loan taken by a buyer for a specific period of time.

Homebuyer AA Siddique approached MahaRERA against builders Sandeep Agarwal and Shashikala Agarwal.

The homebuyer had booked a flat in the building Kingston Aura and the agreement of sale was executed in June 2016.

The developer was to hand over the possession by December 2018, but failed to do so. They blamed recession that began in 2016 for the delay.

As there was a delay in possession, the homebuyer were entitled to get interest on their amount paid to the builder under section 18 of RERA.

The homebuyer had booked the flat under subvention scheme. Where the builder was to pay the interest on the loan amount till possession.

However, it appeared that, the developer paid for the initial three months and thereafter interest was deducted from the buyers account.

B D Kapadnis, Member II of MahaRERA who was hearing the case, pointed out that, the homebuyer is entitled to get refund of the deducted interest amount with interest.

Finally Kapadnis ordered, the developer to pay interest at 9% per annum on the consideration amount paid by the buyer from the date of possession till handing over of the flat.

Kapadnis also ordered, the builder to refund the amount of interest paid by the homebuyer which was payable by them (developers). This amount shall also carry an interest of 9% per annum from its deduction till refund.

The parties were allowed to adjust the claims, also the buyer was permitted to allow the builder to issue the credit note of the amount payable in future.

Adv Prakkash Rohira on this order said, “In my opinion it has been rightly observed by the bench that the interest amount is a credit to the buyers account. A Precedent would be set for troubled home buyers.”

Also Read: Mumbai city’s14,500 dilapidated buildings get relief

The post Builder to pay interest on interest paid by homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.