MahaRERA relief for homebuyer waiting for 9 years

Mumbai: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has directed Sunteck Realty Group’s Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd to refund Rs1.23 crore to a homebuyer with interest from December 2013. The housing regulator held that the developer had violated the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act and the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act.

The 14-page order, issued by MahaRERA member Vijay Satbir Singh on April 20, also warned that a penalty of Rs5,000 per day will be imposed if the developer fails to comply with the order within two months. “Thereafter, the penalty shall double every month of default till actual compliance,” it adds.

Homebuyer Prashant Puthran had approached the regulator seeking a refund of his investment under Section 18 of RERA. He alleged that despite paying more than 80% of the consideration for the flat in Sunteck City Avenue-2 project in Goregaon, the developer had not provided a registered agreement for sale.

“It is the case of the complainant that he had booked Flat No. 303 in B-3 wing of Tower 1 of Sunteck City Avenue-2 on December 5, 2013, by signing an application form. However, the application form did not state the date of possession. Of the total consideration of Rs1.50 crore, he paid Rs1.23 crore till June 2020. Despite repeatedly demanding a registered agreement for sale, the developer allegedly did not provide even a draft agreement until 2019. From April 2020, the developer informed him via emails that possession will be given on or before October 30, 2021, the date declared on MahaRERA website,” the order said.

Advocate Tanuj Lodha, appearing for Puthran, argued that as per Section 46 of the Contract Act, even if no time for possession is stated, the possession must be given within a reasonable time, citing previous Supreme Court judgements.

Homebuyers cannot be made to wait for an unreasonable amount of time, and more than seven years is beyond reasonable, he said. He also contended that the developer had intentionally kept his client in the dark and deprived him of rental income for over seven years by adopting unfair practices.

Denying the allegations, advocate Preet Chheda, appearing for the developer argued that his client had obtained the Occupation Certificate for the flat on August 18, 2021, and Puthran was no longer an allottee in the project after his booking was terminated for failing to pay dues and completing the sale. The lawyer contended that Section 18 of RERA comes into the picture only when the promoter fails to give possession of the apartment and that, in this case, there was no document with the complainant showing the agreed date of possession.

After hearing arguments and written submissions from both parties, MahaRERA member Vijay Satbir Singh said, prima facie, the developer had violated Section 4 of MOFA and Section 13 of RERA for accepting more than 20% of the flat consideration without first registering an agreement for sale. He observed that despite paying a substantial part of the flat cost, the homebuyer had to wait for his home even after nine years.

“Normally a project should be complete in three to five years as held by the hon’ble Apex Court in its various judgements. Such an inordinate delay is neither permissible nor justifiable by any stretch of the imagination,” he said, adding that Puthran was entitled to relief under Section 18 of RERA.

Singh said the developer had registered April 13, 2021, as the proposed date of completion while registering the project but, even on that date, the project was incomplete as the OC was obtained only on August 18, 2021.