The MahaRERA Member Ravindra Deshpande, in a detailed order dated 23 April 2026 (Complaint No. CC006000000078246), has pulled up Noble Infra Projects and directed it to deliver legal possession of Flat No. 1202 in “Noble Heights”, Malad (East), to the rightful allottee along with heavy interest running from January 2018.

How the Dispute Began

Shakir Shafiyddin Shaikh, the complainant, had worked as a labour and construction contractor for the builder’s SRA redevelopment project in Malad between 2015 and 2017. When the builder failed to clear his dues of around ₹1.22 crore, the parties reached a settlement in late 2017.

In lieu of cash payment, the builder executed a registered Agreement for Sale on 22 November 2017, allotting Flat No. 1202 (460 sq.ft. carpet area, 12th floor) to Shaikh for ₹55 lakh, with the amount adjusted against the outstanding contractor dues. The agreement promised possession by 31 December 2017.

Years passed with no possession and no Occupation Certificate (OC). Shaikh filed a complaint with MahaRERA in 2019. While the case was pending, the builder quietly handed over the same flat to a third party, who began occupying it. Electricity consumption records submitted in the case proved actual usage by someone else.

Builder’s Defence Crumbles

The developer claimed the Agreement for Sale was forged by a rogue employee in collusion with Shaikh. MahaRERA rejected this defence, observing:

• The builder had earlier admitted the execution of the agreement in multiple proceedings (including Section 138 NI Act cases and appeals), describing it only as signed “under duress”.
• The fraud and forgery allegations surfaced only in 2023–2024 — nearly six years later — indicating they were an afterthought.
• A registered document carries a strong presumption of validity unless set aside by a competent civil court.

The Authority ruled that Shakir Shaikh is a valid “Allottee” under Section 2(d) of RERA. Adjustment of dues against the flat price was accepted as valid consideration.

Key Directions in the Judgment

• The builder must hand over legal possession of Flat No. 1202 with Occupation Certificate to the complainant within 60 days.
• Pay interest under Section 18 of RERA on the full ₹55 lakh from 1 January 2018 till the date of actual possession (at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2%).
• Pay ₹20,000 towards the complainant’s litigation costs.

No separate compensation for mental agony was awarded, as the statutory interest itself is compensatory in nature.

Why This Order Matters

This judgment highlights a serious malpractice in the real estate sector — builders creating third-party interests in already-sold units while litigation is pending. MahaRERA made it clear that such actions cannot defeat the rights of a registered allottee. The order also reaffirms RERA’s jurisdiction over delay-in-possession matters, even when parallel civil/criminal proceedings alleging fraud are ongoing.

The builder now faces the uphill task of removing the third-party occupant, obtaining the OC, and paying a massive accumulated interest bill that has been running for more than eight years.

This case serves as a strong warning to developers: registered agreements and RERA proceedings cannot be bypassed through backdoor dealings.

Also Read: Builder Couldn’t Pay ₹2,000 Cost, MahaRERA Orders ₹25 Lakh+ Refund to Homebuyer

The post Builder Hands Flat To Third Party, While Homebuyer Was Busy Fighting MahaRERA Case appeared first on Square Feat India.

The final order, passed on April 7, 2026 by Member-II Shri. Ravindra Deshpande in Complaint No. CC006000000196093, involved buyers in the “Gaurav Samruddhi” project (MahaRERA Registration No. P51700009724) developed by Ravi Developments in Mira Bhayandar, Thane district.

MahaRERA’s Clear Stance on Group vs Individual Complaints

MahaRERA has consistently maintained through its guidelines (including Order No. 11 of 2019 and the official complaint filing portal) that:

• An aggrieved person must file a separate (individual) complaint when seeking personal or individual reliefs.
• Group complaints are entertained only for truly common reliefs, such as those under Section 7 (revocation of registration) & Section 8 (remaining projects after revocation) of the RERA Act, or for common amenities affecting the entire project.
• The Authority may, at its discretion, club multiple similar individual complaints for joint hearing, but it does not encourage mixed joint filings where individual prayers (like specific parking allotment, personal refunds, or interest calculations) are clubbed together.

In the present case, the Authority noted at the outset that the 11 complainants had filed a common complaint seeking a mix of common and individual reliefs. This made it “difficult for this Authority to ascertain which Complainant has purchased which parking” and to grant buyer-specific directions in the absence of clear, per-complainant documentary evidence.

The order explicitly referenced the earlier 2018 directive and MahaRERA’s procedural framework, highlighting that such joint filings often lead to procedural hurdles and partial or limited relief.

This approach aligns with recent MahaRERA observations in other matters, where collective grievances affecting a larger group of allottees are expected to be pursued through a registered Association of Allottees, Co-operative Housing Society, or with explicit authorisation from the majority of homebuyers, rather than by a small group acting in their individual capacity.

Background of the Gaurav Samruddhi Case

The flat buyers had earlier succeeded in a 2018 complaint before the then Chairperson of MahaRERA, which directed the developer to hand over possession by October 31, 2018, pay delay interest if applicable, and initiate society formation.

The buyers claimed they took “fit-out” possession in July 2018. However, even years later, the building lacked a formal Occupation Certificate (OC) from Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation. They alleged missing basic amenities (reliable water supply, consistently working lifts, boundary wall), non-allotment of dedicated car parking despite payments, unpaid property taxes by the developer for the pre-possession period, and demands for additional charges.

Notably, the buyers themselves formed and registered the Gaurav Samruddhi CHS Ltd. in 2021 after the developer failed to do so, despite collecting society formation charges.

What the Order Granted and Rejected

After examining the pleadings, rejoinder, sur-rejoinder, and written submissions (with the final hearing on June 24, 2025), the Authority held:

Granted:

• Direction to the developer (Ravi Developments) to obtain the Occupation Certificate from the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation within 30 days from the date of the order (i.e., by approximately May 7, 2026). No proof of OC having been received was placed on record.

Rejected:

• Fresh claims for delay interest (as buyers had admitted taking possession in July 2018, before the 2018 deadline).
• Compensation for mental agony/harassment under Section 18(3).
• Specific directions on dedicated car parking (due to lack of clarity in the joint filing).
• Refund of property taxes paid by buyers for the pre-possession period (buyers became liable after taking possession and occupying the flats).
• Directions regarding society formation (already done by buyers in 2021).
• Restraints on additional charges or GST on maintenance (society is now handling maintenance).

No costs were awarded to either side. The complainants were represented by Adv. Godfrey Pimenta, while the respondent was represented by Adv. Makrand Raut.

Implications for Homebuyers Across Maharashtra

This order serves as a reminder to homebuyers that:

• For personal reliefs (interest calculation per flat, specific parking, individual refunds, or accounting of payments), filing individual complaints is safer and more effective.
• For project-wide or common issues (such as obtaining OC, major common amenities, or revocation-related matters), approaching through a registered Co-operative Housing Society or Association of Allottees (with majority backing) carries more weight.
• Joint complaints mixing individual and common prayers risk partial rejection or procedural complications.

Homebuyers in similar delayed or lapsed projects are advised to:

• Coordinate through their registered society for common reliefs like OC and handover of accounts.
• File fresh individual complaints where personal monetary claims (interest, compensation) remain unaddressed.
• Consider appealing the order before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) within the stipulated 60 days, if they believe stronger grounds exist for interest or compensation.

The ruling comes at a time when MahaRERA continues to handle thousands of complaints annually, emphasising procedural discipline to ensure efficient redressal while protecting the rights of genuine homebuyers.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute

The post MahaRERA Rejects Joint Complaints by Homebuyers Seeking Individual Reliefs appeared first on Square Feat India.

Member II Shri. Ravindra Deshpande passed the order on 06.04.2026 in Complaint No. CC006000000193290, filed by Manohar Shetty and Lalita M. Shetty. The Authority partly allowed the complaint, awarding interest for the period of delay while rejecting the buyers’ initial demand for a full refund since they ultimately took possession.

Case Details

The complainants had booked Flat No. WING F 0804 by executing an Agreement for Sale on 28.07.2017 for a total consideration of ₹4,32,15,892. They paid approximately ₹4.09 crore (precisely ₹4,06,71,685 as on the agreed possession date). Clause 8.1 of the agreement stipulated possession by September 2019.

Despite the contractual timeline, the project faced delays. The developer cited challenges such as pending municipal sanctions, arbitration proceedings initiated by society members, torrential rains, and later the COVID-19 lockdown. The project received its Occupation Certificate (OC) on 02.03.2020, and buyers were informed via email on 04.03.2020. A final demand notice for the balance ₹25,44,207 was issued on 28.05.2020 during the lockdown period.

The Shettys filed the complaint on 15.06.2020, initially seeking a full refund of the principal amount, taxes, stamp duty, registration charges, interest, rent compensation, and ₹10 lakh for mental agony. They paid the outstanding amount and took possession on 23.10.2020 under protest. Their claim later shifted to interest for delayed possession.

Developer’s Defense and Authority’s Observations

Kolte-Patil argued that the agreement mentioned possession “on or before or about” September 2019, subject to force majeure events. The company highlighted delays due to approvals, arbitration, infrastructure work (including club house), and the pandemic, which prevented physical handover despite the OC.

MahaRERA, however, held that the developer failed to provide timely intimation or formally revise the possession date in the agreement. The Authority noted that extensions granted on the MahaRERA website for project completion do not override the contractual possession date agreed with individual allottees.

Citing the Bombay High Court’s observation in the Neelkamal Realtors case, the Member ruled that the right to interest for delayed possession under Section 18 of the RERA Act is unconditional and absolute, regardless of unforeseen events, once the agreed date lapses.

Interest Awarded

The Authority granted interest only from 01.10.2019 to 03.03.2020 on the amount paid by the complainants up to 30.09.2019 (₹4,06,71,685). Interest is to be calculated at the highest Marginal Cost of Funds based Lending Rate (MCLR) of SBI plus 2% per Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules, 2017. This applies monthly and covers only the consideration paid toward the flat (excluding stamp duty, registration charges, and taxes paid to the government).

No interest was awarded after 03.03.2020, as the flat was ready post-OC. The period from 15.03.2020 to 14.09.2020 was treated as a force majeure moratorium under MahaRERA’s Order No. 14/2020, during which interest under Section 18 is not payable.

Additionally, Kolte-Patil was directed to pay ₹20,000 toward the cost of the complaint. The developer must comply within 60 days of the order.

The Authority did not entertain the developer’s counter-claim for interest on the buyers’ delayed payment of the balance amount, as no separate complaint was filed.

Key Takeaways from the Ruling

• Contractual possession dates in the Agreement for Sale take precedence over RERA-registered project completion timelines for calculating delay interest.
• Promoters must proactively communicate delays and revise dates formally; failure to do so weakens force majeure defenses.
• COVID-19 moratorium provides limited relief to developers but does not erase pre-pandemic delays.
• Homebuyers who take possession retain the right to claim interest for the delay period.

This order aligns with MahaRERA’s consistent approach in similar delayed possession cases, balancing buyer protection with practical realities like pandemics.

Homebuyers in ongoing redevelopment or delayed projects in Mumbai are advised to review their agreements and monitor project updates closely. Developers must ensure transparent communication to avoid such disputes.

Also Read: Builder cancels booking, MahaRERA orders refund

The post MahaRERA Orders Kolte-Patil Developers to Pay Interest for Delayed Possession in Vile Parle Redevelopment Project appeared first on Square Feat India.

The judgement was delivered on 23 June 2025 in Appeal No. AT005000000235139 of 2024 (Lalit Rade vs. Atul Ratnakar Mahashabde), overturning an earlier dismissal by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).

Case Background and Facts

• Homebuyer Lalit Rade booked a flat (No. 925, carpet area ≈513.46 sq.ft.) in the project “Tropica Phase-II” (MahaRERA Registration No. P2100008711, Pune), developed by Omkar Developers (with Atul Ratnakar Mahashabde as partner).
• The registered Agreement for Sale was executed on 9 March 2017, promising possession within 30 months + 6 months grace period (due date: effectively 6/9 September 2019).
• The buyer paid the full consideration of ₹36,94,150/- plus ₹2,83,428/- GST.
• The developer failed to deliver possession by the agreed date and had not obtained the OC even years later.
• In 2022, the buyer filed a complaint before MahaRERA seeking possession with OC, amenities, and interest for delay under Section 18 of RERA.

MahaRERA’s Impugned Order (19 April 2024) MahaRERA dismissed the complaint, reasoning:

• “Soft possession” was allegedly given on 23 September 2023 via conciliation.
• Interest claim was an “afterthought” since possession was taken.
• No cause of action survived under Section 18 for possession.
• Amenity/defect issues were premature without OC.

MahaREAT’s Landmark Ruling The Tribunal (Coram: Justice S.S. Shinde, Chairperson, and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande) heard the appeal ex-parte (developer did not appear) and allowed it fully. Key holdings:

1. No successful conciliation existed — Records showed conciliation failed in 2019, and the matter was referred back for adjudication. The Authority wrongly assumed settlement and soft possession.
2. Soft/fit-out possession without OC is not lawful — Possession under RERA means handing over a completed, habitable flat with valid OC from the competent authority. Anything less (e.g., access for fit-outs while construction/approvals pending) does not discharge the developer’s obligation.
3. Right to interest under Section 18 is absolute and indefeasible — Citing Supreme Court judgements in Imperia Structures Ltd. vs. Anil Patni (2020) and Newtech Promoters vs. State of UP (2021), the Tribunal held that once delay occurs beyond the agreed date (and buyer is not at fault), interest is payable unconditionally till lawful possession with OC. Full payment by buyer and no fault on their part strengthen the claim.
4. Developer’s liability continues — The promoter remains bound to obtain OC and hand over lawful possession.

Directions Issued

• Set aside the MahaRERA order of 19 April 2024.
• Developer to pay interest on ₹36,94,150/- at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2%:
  • From 7 September 2019 till 23 June 2025 — payable within 30 days.
  • If delayed, further interest on outstanding amount (as on 23 July 2025) till realization.
  • Continuing interest at same rate from date of order till OC is obtained.
• Developer to obtain OC and hand over lawful possession with OC.
• Parties bear own costs.

Why This Matters for Homebuyers This ruling reinforces that developers cannot use “soft possession” as a tactic to escape interest liability for years-long delays. Homebuyers should:

• Insist on possession only with valid OC and all amenities.
• Not accept soft possession if it risks waiving delay compensation claims.
• Approach RERA/MahaREAT promptly for interest even after partial access.

Such judgements strengthen buyer protections under RERA and deter incomplete handovers.

Also Read: What Is Carpet Area?

The post Soft possession without OC is not lawful possession: MahaREAT rules in favour of homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne, while dismissing the developer’s challenge to the Arbitral Award dated 16 August 2024, upheld the award almost entirely and extended the timeline for compliance by six months (total 9 months from today).

Background of the Long-Running Dispute

Evertop Apartments Co-operative Housing Society (58 old flats on Plot No. 9/10/11, CTS No. 834/1, 834/2 & 822/1, J.P. Road, Andheri West) entered into a redevelopment agreement with Lotus Logistics in 2008.

• The developer promised 52% additional carpet area to each member, amenities, monthly rent during construction, and OC within 30 months (maximum).
• The first sanctioned plan dated 17 September 2008 showed no “open-to-sky ducts” in living rooms or bedrooms of rehab flats (Wing A).
• Wing A was physically constructed as per this 2008 plan (with covered slabs, no ducts).
• However, the developer secretly obtained two revised plans:
  • 9 May 2009
  • 25 March 2011
• These plans showed large “open-to-sky ducts” (FSI-exempt voids) in living rooms and bedrooms of Wing A flats.
• By creating these fictitious ducts on paper, the developer shifted built-up area (FSI) from rehab Wing A to the free-sale commercial Wing B — effectively reducing the area available to society members while loading more saleable area in Wing B.
• MCGM refuses OC for Wing A because the as-built construction does not match the last sanctioned plan (2011), which shows non-existent ducts.

The society terminated the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney on 15 October 2015 due to multiple breaches, including non-payment of rent from February 2014.

Key Events Leading to Arbitration & High Court

• In October 2015, during the Society’s Section 9 petition, the developer made a solemn statement before the High Court (recorded in the order dt. 20 Oct 2015) that it would obtain OC expeditiously in consultation with the society.
• This statement effectively revived the obligation to obtain OC.
• The matter was referred to a sole Arbitrator.
• The society’s claim primarily sought directions to obtain OC as per the original 2008 plan (or regularise ducts) + heavy damages if impossible.
• The Arbitrator passed the award directing:
  • Developer to amend plans to match 2008 sanctioned plan & obtain OC for Wing A within 6 months.
  • If OC refused → regularise fictitious ducts (by bringing external FSI) within 3 months.
  • If both fail → pay ₹128.98 crore (market value of land + building) + 8% interest.
  • Pay rent arrears (Feb 2014 – Oct 2015) @ ₹80/sq.ft./month/member + interest.
  • Pay ₹45.82 lakh for shortfall area (195 sq.ft. total) @ ₹23,500/sq.ft. + interest.
  • Pay property taxes (Nov 2008 – Oct 2015).
  • Declared 2009 & 2011 plans + 2010 Rectification Deed void & non-binding.

Developer’s Challenge & Bombay HC’s Verdict

The developer challenged the award under Section 34, arguing:

• Specific performance cannot be granted after termination of the agreement.
• ₹128.98 crore represents market value — not permissible; damages should be limited to demolition + reconstruction cost.

Justice Marne rejected both contentions:

1. Specific Performance After Termination – Allowed
   • Normal rule: Termination bars specific performance.
   • Exception created by developer’s conduct:
     • Solemn undertaking in Court (20 Oct 2015) to obtain OC.
     • This statement revived the obligation.
     • Developer never demanded reinstatement of PoA; repeatedly said it is “ready & willing”.
     • Developer cannot approbate & reprobate.
   • Court held the undertaking + correspondence + defence pleading made specific performance maintainable.
2. Damages of ₹128.98 Crore – Upheld
   • Payable only if OC refused and regularisation fails.
   • Primary direction is to obtain OC or regularise → damages are in terrorem to compel performance.
   • Developer can easily avoid payment by complying (DCPR allows “pick & choose” FSI).
   • Tribunal chose lowest valuation (₹128.98 cr market value vs. ₹169 cr reconstruction cost) → no perversity.

Extended Timeline & Final Directions

The court extended the original 6-month timeline by 6 more months (total 9 months from today) for the developer to obtain OC/regularise the building.

If the developer fails even within the extended period, the full damages liability (₹128.98 crore + 8% interest) kicks in from the original award date.

What This Means

For the 58 families of Evertop Apartments, the judgment brings hope after over a decade of living in a building without OC — unable to legally occupy, sell or mortgage their flats.

The ruling sends a strong message: Developers cannot manipulate plans to steal rehab FSI for sale components and escape liability by citing termination.

The developer now has 9 months to rectify the issue — or face massive financial consequences.

The full judgment is available on the Bombay High Court website.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Rules BMC Permission Not Required for Tenantable Repairs

The post Developer Asked to Get OC or Pay Rs 129 Crore in Damages to Housing Society appeared first on Square Feat India.

Addressed to former MP Gopal Shetty, the official letter dated 5 September 2025, outlines the formation of this expert committee. The aim is to swiftly assess root causes and propose actionable measures to resolve undue hardships faced by society residents.

The Team and Mandate

Four senior experts have been appointed to the committee:

• Adv. Amit Mehta
• Adv. Vivekanand Gupta
• Adv. Jayprakash Mishra
• Adv. Siddharth Sharma

They are instructed to conduct thorough inquiries and submit pragmatic recommendations for alleviating injustices stemming from OC-related delays.

Why the Move Now?

Delays in issuing OCs aren’t just bureaucratic glitches — they have far-reaching implications. Here’s a snapshot of the larger OC predicament:

• In Navi Mumbai, the municipal corporation identified 2,111 buildings occupied without OCs, despite holding commencement certificates. Authorities have warned that legal action will follow if these buildings don’t regularize their OC status promptly.
• In another case, the Bombay High Court severely reprimanded residents of a Tardeo high-rise lacking OCs for the upper floors, describing them as “a selfish lot” for compromising safety and regulatory norms. These residents have been directed to vacate within two weeks.

These instances underscore widespread procedural inertia and the pressing need for civic clarity.

BJP’s Role in Addressing the OC Crisis

The BJP’s initiative signals a proactive political stride — aiming to bridge administrative gaps and offer tangible relief to affected residents:

• Investigative Lens: The Study Cell will ascertain specific causes behind OC delays—be it fire safety clearance, infrastructure encroachments, or procedural lapses.
• Advisory Output: Based on findings, the panel will recommend clear protocols and solutions to fast-track OC issuance.
• Political Oversight: The BJP will likely use committee recommendations to influence streamlined governance and ensure residents aren’t deprived of their homes due to technical delays.

What’s Next?

With the committee now in place, residents of Mumbai’s affected housing societies may finally see a path toward resolution. Whether this effort catalyses policy change, bureaucratic reform, or legal clarity remains to be seen — but for now, it stands as the BJP’s tangible commitment to resolving a longstanding public grievance.

Also Read: MahaRERA Cancels Registration of ‘Rajlaxmi Developer’ Project Over Fake Commencement Certificate

The post BJP Constitutes Special Study Group to Tackle OC Certificate Delays in Mumbai Housing Societies appeared first on Square Feat India.

Goyal recounted that he bought his home in 2010, with the expectation that it would be ready for occupancy shortly after. While the property was completed in 2012, it faced significant delays, as the building did not receive its Occupation Certificate (OC) for another five years. This protracted wait exemplifies the struggles that many buyers faced in the pre-RERA (Real Estate Regulatory Authority) landscape, where regulatory oversight was lacking.

Reflecting on his experience, Goyal emphasized that the real estate market during that time operated in a “different orbit,” highlighting the need for reforms to protect homebuyers. His comments resonate with countless individuals who have encountered similar frustrations in their quest for housing.

Goyal’s story serves as a reminder of the importance of accountability in the real estate sector and the ongoing need for regulatory measures that prioritize the rights and interests of homebuyers. His experience underscores the challenges that even influential figures can face in the complex world of real estate transactions.

Also Read: At USD 2.5 Billion, Q2 2024 institutional investment in Indian real estate touches a 3-year high

The post Union Minister Piyush Goyal Shares His Struggles with Mumbai Developer appeared first on Square Feat India.

Piramal Realty’s success can be attributed to its deep understanding of customers and focus on providing luxurious but practical homes. The company has differentiated itself by incorporating distinctive biophilic designs to create an environment where the residents can actively participate, preserve, and connect with the natural landscapes around them. The consistent performance across its residential projects in MMR is a testament to the consumers’ adoption of tech-enabled solutions, including modern concepts such as lifestyle-conscious designs and better living spaces. This has allowed the company to stay ahead of the curve meeting the evolving needs of its customers.

Gaurav Sawhney, CEO, Piramal Realty said, “Securing the Occupancy Certificate (O.C) for three projects marks an important milestone for us. We eagerly anticipate extending a warm welcome to our esteemed customers as they embark on their journey to experience #ThePiramalLife. It is a testament to our hard work, dedication, and expertise in delivering projects that offer a modern-day living experience. Through the unwavering efforts of our team, our projects will bring in the much-required character to our homes”

He further added, “Designed using the principles of biophilia, our residential projects effortlessly blend the boundaries between indoor and outdoor living, providing our residents with a serene and balanced living experience that nurtures one’s well-being. These projects redefine community living with its state-of-the-art amenities and panoramic views. We look forward to seeing our vision come to life as families make these extraordinary communities their home.”

Piramal Realty has an impressive portfolio of award-winning residential projects in Mumbai’s prime locations, with over 13 million square feet currently under development. Notable developments include Piramal Aranya (Byculla), Piramal Mahalaxmi, Piramal Revanta(Mulund), and Piramal Vaikunth( Thane).

Also Read: Piramal Realty Offers 0% Interest On Home Loans

The post PIRAMAL REALTY SECURES OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE (OC) FOR THREE LUXURY PROJECTS IN MMR appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

There are many buildings where homebuyers have been staying, in spite of a no Occupation Certificate (OC).

However, this would be one of those rarest time, when an authority has asked for initiating legal action against such residents.

MahaRERA recently asked the secretary, to bring to the notice of local Municipal Commissioner about residents in a building without an OC.

Actually the complaint was filed by the builder against the landowners stating that the latter was causing obstructions in completion of the project.

The project in concern is Nivrutti Heights being developed in Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation limits.

The respondent in the case informed MahaRERA that although all the amenities weren’t provided yet 45 families were residing in the building.

MahaRERA member B D Kapadnis who was hearing the matter noticed that, almost 62 flats were constructed in the building, and according to the promoters who were the complainants only 1% work was left to be completed.

Kapadnis further noticed in his order that, 45 families were residing in the building, which is yet not completely constructed. And is not safe to live in absence of fire safety system. He further noticed that, these families were residing in the building without it having an OC.

Section 3 (2) (i) of MOFA 1963, prohibits a builder from inducting any person without completion certificate in the flats. It also prohibits the home buyer from taking possession of such flat without Occupancy Certificate.

Kapadnis mentioned that the promoter and the occupants have to be proceeded against by the Municipal Corporation under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act.

Kapadnis said, “In view of this legal position, I find that it is necessary for this Authority to prosecute the complainants, respondents and all those occupants, who have occupied the premises without OC. Therefore, it is necessary to refer the issue to Municipal Commissioner for taking action in accordance with the law.”

MahaRERA, asked the secretary to bring to the notice of the Municipal Commissioner of Pimpri Chinchwad to take legal action against the offenders.

Also MahaRERA asked the respondents to not obstruct the completion of the project and installing of fire safety system.

The complainants were also asked to complete the project as per the sanctioned plan. They were also asked to provide amenities and fix all the defects pointed out by the respondents.

Also Read: Societies cannot stop tenants entry citing COVID

The post Action against residents for occupying flats without OC appeared first on Square Feat India.

By Varun Singh

According to CRE Matrix, a real estate research and deep data analytics company, of the active real estate projects in the city of Mumbai, 33,251 housing units have received Occupation Certificate.

The Mumbai housing fact sheet, shows that of these flats, 24,345 housing units have been sold, while 8,906 housing units remain unsold.

Of the total ready to move in units, 24 per cent of 1BHK, 29 per cent of 2 BHK, and 35 per cent of studio units are unsold.

A further dissection of figures reveal that, 85 per cent of the units launched in Mumbai are 1 and 2 BHK.

Also 70 per cent of the units booked in Mumbai are also 1 and 2 BHK.

Of the total units launched by several developers, 50 per cent units launched are 2 BHK. While the figure stands at 35 per cent for 1 BHK.

While 42 per cent of 2 BHK are booked, 28 per cent of the 1 BHK have been booked too.

In the quarter 4 of 2019, the total units launched in Mumbai stood at 3,314, whereas the booked units are 4,552.

The figures for fourth quarter 2018 was launched units were 5,491, whereas booked units were 1,788.

In Mumbai, 52 per cent of housing units sold were in the average ticket size of Rs 50 lakh to Rs 2 crore.

In the fourth quarter of 2019, 735 units sold were priced between Rs 50 lakh to 1 crore, whereas 1,913 units sold were priced between Rs 1-2 crore.

Only 112 apartments sold were priced up to Rs 50 lakh, whereas 1,243 apartments sold were priced between Rs 2-3 crore.

1,655 apartments sold were between 3-5 crore and 1,425 apartments sold were priced above Rs 5 crore.

Every quarter on an average, Mumbai sells approximately Rs 5,000 crore worth of primary residential units.

Also Read: Registration offices start in Mumbai, 487 registrations on Day 1

The post Mumbai: 33,251 registered housing units received OC appeared first on Square Feat India.