The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has modified a 2019 MahaRERA order, directing the promoter, Neelkamal Realtors, of a Mira Road real estate project to pay interest from 2013 on amounts paid by home buyers until possession is granted. The case involved a couple who booked a flat in Orchid Ozone in 2010, and paid 90% without a registered agreement. Although possession was to be given in 2013, the couple hasn’t received it yet. The tribunal found flaws in MahaRERA's order and instructed the promoter to execute a sale agreement promptly upon receiving the occupancy certificate. The judgment highlighted the promoter's breach of payment ceiling and obligations under real estate laws.
In a recent development, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has amended a 2019 order from the housing regulator, MahaRERA, concerning a real estate project in Mira Road. The tribunal deemed the order to be flawed and directed Neelkamal Realtors, the promoter of the project, to pay interest from 2013 on amounts paid by home buyers until the actual granting of possession of the flat. The MREAT also mandated the prompt execution of a sale agreement by the promoter, along with handing over possession upon receiving the occupancy certificate. The case in question involved a complainant couple who booked a flat in Orchid Ozone in January 2010, paying around Rs 3.64 lakh initially, with a total consideration of about Rs 40 lakh. Although no registered agreement was in place, the couple paid up to 90% of the consideration amount. The promoters, Neelkamal Realtors, allegedly orally committed to delivering possession within three years from the date of the allotment letter. However, the complainant couple faced delays, and the project completion date was reportedly revised multiple times by the promoter. The MahaRERA order, which instructed the promoter to execute the sale agreement, initially denied interest to the home buyer who booked the flat in 2010 and had not yet received possession. The MREAT's judgment highlighted the problems in the RERA's order and stressed the promoter's responsibility to provide a stage-wise time schedule for project completion at the time of booking, as per section 11 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The tribunal also emphasized that the claims for delay in interest and execution of the agreement were not mentioned in the RERA order. Following legal principles, if claims are not mentioned in the order, they are presumed to be denied. The judgment underscored the promoter's obligation, under section 13 of the Act, to first execute an agreement for sale. Notably, the promoter had accepted payments up to 90% of the flat's consideration without fulfilling this obligation. Also, the demands raised by the promoters for payments beyond the 10% threshold breached the upper ceiling prescribed by section 13 of the Act and section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act. In summary, the MREAT's intervention revises the MahaRERA order, acknowledging the promoter's lapses and directing financial compensation for homebuyers affected by possession delays. The tribunal's emphasis on adherence to legal obligations and its meticulous scrutiny of the MahaRERA's order reflects a commitment to ensuring fairness and accountability in real estate transactions. This case serves as a precedent for reinforcing consumer rights within the framework of real estate regulations.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
