MahaRERA has taken action against 370 projects in the state for printing advertisements of housing projects without MahaRERA registration number and QR code. A fine of around Rs 33 lakh has been imposed on these projects out of which Rs 22.2 lakh have been recovered.

It includes 173 projects in Mumbai area, 162 in Pune area and 35 in Nagpur area. For safe and protected investment, MahaRERA has urged not to invest in housing projects without having MahaRERA registration number.

This includes 89 projects printing advertisements without MahaRERA number and 84 projects printing advertisements without QR code, totaling 173 such projects in the Mumbai region comprising Mumbai, Mumbai suburbs, Thane and Konkan.

A fine of Rs 14.75 lakh has been imposed on those who did not print the MahaRERA registration number and Rs 5.6 lakh on those who do not have a QR code. Of these, Rs 11.75 lakh and Rs 2.1 lakh respectively have been recovered by MahaRERA.

Following Mumbai Metropolitan, action has been taken on 162 projects in Pune region which includes western Maharashtra and Khandesh region. A fine of Rs 6.3 lakh has been imposed on 101 projects for not printing the MahaRERA registration number. Out of this Rs 4.10 lakh have been recovered. A fine of Rs 3.25 lakh has been imposed on 61 projects for not printing QR code and Rs 1.25 lakh has been recovered. In the Nagpur area which includes Vidarbha, Marathwada, action has been taken against 35 projects and a fine of Rs 3 lakh has been imposed and the entire amount of the fine has been recovered.

In this advertisement, apart from newspaper advertisements, the amount of advertisements on social media such as Instagram, Facebook, website, YouTube is also significant. According to the Immovable Property Act, any project (including flats) of more than 500 square meters or 8 flats must be registered with the MahaRERA . And without MahaRERA registration number, no developer can do any kind of advertisement of the project, registration of houses in that project, sale.

Apart from this, MahaRERA has also made it mandatory for projects to print a QR code containing comprehensive details expected by consumers from August 1. However, MahaRERA observed that some developers are disregarding this rule and printing advertisements without MahaRERA registration number and QR code. It is taken seriously by MahaRERA and Suo Motu Show Cause Notices are issued to such projects.

In order to ensure that the home buyers and the investment in the real estate sector as a whole are safe and protected, the government has implemented the Real Estate Act and established the MahaRERA for proper regulation of this sector. MahaRERA takes care of many fundamentals on behalf of home buyers and other investors in the sector. But consumers should also be careful to invest only in MahaRERA registered projects, it has been appealed on behalf of MahaRERA.

Also Read: Commercial Real Estate Market in Mumbai

The post MahaRERA action against 370 projects for not printing MahaRERA number and QR code 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

There are many cases, where a builder oversells, at times they even sell flats for which they do not even have approvals.

A similar case knocked the doors of MahaRERA, where the authority held the builder being involved in a kind of unfair practice.

Rashiquah Ahmad approached MahaRERA against the developer Cordcon Builders Pvt Ltd.

Ahmad had booked an apartment in the building Indian Ocean located at Andheri, Mumbai.

The booking was carried out via a Letter of Allotment dated October 22, 2015 and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed on October 27, 2015.

The homebuyer alleged that the builder illegally sold them an apartment on 17^th floor by making false representation that approval would be obtained.

Further, they stated that in spite of having paid 81% of the amount, the builder failed to  obtain approval and enter into an agreement for sale.

Homebuyer alleged that the developer has permission to construct only up to 15 floors as per the MCGM approvals and has not been able to acquire further approvals till date.

The buyer asked that the developer be directed to refund the amounts paid along with interest and payment of arrears of compensation towards rent at promised rate from November 2018 till the date of refund.

Builder submitted the he does not have the requisite approvals for the 17^th floor and has been paying compensatory rent to the homebuyer.

Developer was also willing to adhere to the MoU executed between the parties.  

The developer was willing to offer an alternate apartment to the homebuyer. But the counsel for the homebuyer stated that the alternate apartment offered was not to the liking of the homebuyer.

Counsel for the homebuyer also informed that by a letter dated February 1, 2019 the builder had given the option to the homebuyer to mutually end the transaction of sale of the apartment, in case the developer fails to provide possession of the apartment before the period ending December, 2019.

Gautam Chaterjee, Chairman, MahaRERA held that, the registered project is till up to 16 slabs of super structure and the homebuyer’s apartment is not part of the registered project.

Hence, strictly speaking,  the homebuyer is not an allottee in the registered project

Gautam Chaterjee, Chairman, MahaRERA

Chaterjee in his order dated September 30, 2020, noted, “though the Complainant’s apartment is not registered with MahaRERA, the act of the developer to take money from the Complainant for a proposed apartment and issue him an allotment letter, with an MoU in the registered project, amounts to the promoter being involved in a kind of “unfair practice” by promoting sale by adopting  unfair method like representing that the promoter has approval which he does not  have.”

Thus the builder was directed to refund the amounts paid by the homebuyer as per the terms agreed between the parties in the MoU and the builder’s email dated February 1, 2019.  

Also Read: Coworking Spaces In Residential Projects?

The post Unfair Practice: Builder Sells Flat Of Which He Didn’t Have Approvals appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

Yes heard it right, a developer was held liable by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) for the promise made by its channel partner to the home buyer.

The case is that of Rekha Navani a home buyer who booked a flat in Lawns and Beyond Phase 2, Omkar International District located at Andheri for a total consideration of Rs 1.36 crore.

While booking the flat at an exhibition, the channel partner of developer allegedly promised that in case she is found ineligible for housing loan, the amount paid will be refunded. 

At the time of booking she paid Rs 1 lakh towards expression of interest (EOI) and Rs 6.95 lakh towards application fees. A Letter of Allotment was executed on December 5, 2017 following which a demand notice was also issued to Navani by developer to pay further amount as agreed.

However, as Navani could not procure loan from banks, she requested the developer to cancel the flat and refund the amount she paid. The developer returned Rs 1 lakh only and forfeited Rs 6.95 lakh.

Post which the home buyer approached MahaRERA where the matter was disposed off, the buyer then appealed to the appellate tribunal.

At the appellate tribunal, the developer’s advocate pointed out clauses from application form filled by home buyer. He stated, in the event of withdrawal/cancellation of booking or non-payment of balance application fees, the amount of application fees paid shall be forfeited. 

Further the counsel stated that in case of termination of allotment due to fault of buyer, builder is entitled to recover/forfeit amount equivalent to 10% of the total consideration of flat. 

The counsel stated “Accordingly, on account of cancellation of booking by Appellant, the builder was though entitled to actually recover Rs 13.6 lakh (10% of the total price) yet as against the said amount, only Rs 6.95 lakh have been forfeited as only that much amount was paid so far by the buyer.”

Further about the promise made by the channel partner to the buyer, the counsel for the developer stated, that the email sent by the channel partner was addressed to homebuyer and not the builder and hence has no relevance.

The appellate tribunal held, “The fact that channel partner was appointed by Respondent (developer) for booking the flat has not been categorically denied by Respondent. Therefore, Respondent cannot brush aside its liability arising out of the said promise.”

The tribunal further said, “Iin view of the obligation of Respondent to honour the commitment made by its channel partner on its behalf, the forfeiture of amount paid by appellant (home buyer) is erroneous and against the object and purpose of the Act which is enacted as a beneficial legislation to abate hardships of flat purchasers’.”

Finally the developer was directed to refund the balance amount of Rs. 6.95 lakh to the buyer, on or before August 31, 2020 failing which an interest @ 2% above SBI’s highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate shall be payable w,e.f. September 1, 2020 till realisation of the amount.

Also Read: TATA housing directed to refund money to homebuyer

The post Developer liable for promise made by Channel Partner appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

MahaRERA only in the month of March has uploaded 85 orders of suo-motu action it took against realty projects. 

In all the cases the complainant was secretary, MahaRERA. The complaints were filed, because the registration of these projects with MahaRERA had lapsed. Above this it was noticed that the developers had not sought any extension of dates either.

Another important aspect noted in the orders is that as per the details on the webpage of projects against whom the suo-motu orders were passed were not complete.

The developers had also failed to upload the Annual Audit Report of Statutory CA – Form 5 for FY 17-18 and FY 18-19, which is mandatory as per the rules and regulations of RERA.

Advocate Prakkash Rohira who fights cases in MahaRERA said, “Regulatory departments taking so motu cognizance and self regulating the projects is an ideal method to enforce law compliance. Municipal bodies too must follow similar practices with goals for law enforcement.”

MahaRERA in the orders have said, “At this stage, since the project registration period has lapsed, the only way forward is to protect the allottees and enable them to form an association of allottees.” 

The Association of allottees which is the association of home buyers can then take an informed decision regarding carrying out the balance work to complete the project. 

The developers were also asked to handover every allottee the list including contact details of all the allottees in the project. This to enable the allottees in the project to form an association and take an informed decision regarding the project. 

The Association of Allottees can also proceed under section 7 (Revocation of registration) or section 8. Section 8 states that upon lapse of the registration or on revocation of the registration, the Authority, may consult the appropriate Government to take such action as it may deem fit including the carrying out of the remaining development works by competent authority or by the association of allottees or in any other manner, as may be determined by the Authority. 

Since January till now, MahaRERA has uploaded around 163 suo-motu orders against projects. 

Rohira said, “Developers need to understand that mere registration with RERA is not sufficient and the registration requires constant stage wise updation and compliance. These “cleansing” orders against defaulting developers will serve as a precedent that malpractices putting homeowners at risk will not be tolerated anymore.”

Name of some of the developers against whom orders have been passed
Ashapura Builders and Developers, Shree Ekveera Developers, Rupji Constructions, Darode Jog Homes Pvt Ltd, Dreams Construction Pvt Ltd, Signo Construction and V J Construction, PR Builders, Om Associates, K K Developers and others.

Also Read: Action Against 20 Projects By MahaRERA In A Day

The post MahaRERA: suo-motu action on 85 projects in March appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

Recently a developer was found guilty of indulging in unfair practices, he had mentioned a possession date in the draft agreement but then he changed the date in the original copy of agreement. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) held the developer guilty of indulging in unfair practice within section 7 of RERA and he was asked to pay interest to the home buyers. 

Home buyers Kishor and Suhma Surve approached MahaRERA against the developer Mindspace Realty Pvt Ltd. The home buyers complained that the developer in whose project they had booked the flat in Chinchwad, had agreed to hand over the possession of the flat in December 2018. He had even sent them a draft of the agreement mentioning the same date. Thereafter, the developer took the signature of the home buyers and without showing them the date of possession mentioned there in. When they received the original copy of the agreement, they found that instead of December 2018, it was December 2020 that was mentioned. 

The home buyers informed MahaRERA that they wanted to continue in the project and hence claimed interest on their investment for delayed possession. 

The developers failed to appear despite repeated notice, and hence the complaint proceeded exparte against them. B D Kapadnis, Member, MahaRERA who was hearing the case, held that, the home buyers had filed an affidavit wherein they clearly mentioned that the developer had mentioned the date of possession as December 2018 in the draft agreement and however, in the agreement executed and registered the mentioned possession date was December 2020.

The home buyers even produced the copy of the draft agreement which showed the date of the possession as December 2018. “Therefore, I believe the complainants to hold that the respondents (developer) promised to hand over the possession of the flat by December 2018, but without informing them, the developer incorporated the date of possession as December 2020, int he agreement. This is decptive practice of the developer, hence, I find that the developer are guilty of indulging in unfair practice within section 7 of RERA,” noted Kapadnis in his order. 

He finally ordered, the developer to pay an interest at the rate of 10.4 per cent to the home buyers on their investment of Rs 42/69 lakh from January 2019, till delivering the physical possession of the flat with Occupation Certificate. The developer was also asked to pay Rs 10,000 to the home buyers towards cost of complaint. 

The post MahaRERA Asks Developer to Pay Interest. appeared first on Square Feat India.