Failure To Provide Possession Of Two Showrooms On Time, MahaRERA Directs Pune Builder To Pay Interest To The Complainant
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I) directed the Pune-based builder Deron Properties Pvt Ltd to pay interest to the complainant who purchased two showrooms in their project. Background Facts The complainant who is a private company purchased two showrooms in the builder's (Respondent) project named Deron...
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I) directed the Pune-based builder Deron Properties Pvt Ltd to pay interest to the complainant who purchased two showrooms in their project.
Background Facts
The complainant who is a private company purchased two showrooms in the builder's (Respondent) project named Deron Business Square located in Hinjavadi, Pune. The total sale consideration for the showrooms was Rs. 4,37,00,000/- and Rs. 4,20,40,000/- respectively, of which the complainant paid Rs. 3,87,00,000/- and Rs. 3,70,40,000/- respectively.
Further the complainant and the builder entered into an agreement for the sale of both showrooms on 28.12.2018. As per the agreement the builder was supposed to hand over possession by 31.12.2020.
However, even after receiving a substantial amount of the consideration from the complainant the builder failed to hand over possession of the showrooms on the stipulated date which led to financial loss for the complainant.
Therefore, being aggrieved the complainant filed two separate complaints before the authority seeking interest for the delayed possession. The authority joined both complaints for common adjudication.
Observation and Direction by Authority
The Authority noted that according to clause 11 of the agreement for sale the builder was supposed to hand over possession of the showrooms to the complainant by December 31, 2020. However, the builder did not hand over possession on the promised date because the project is still incomplete.
Authority rejected the builder's claim that the project was delayed due to force majeure events like financial difficulties and held that these reasons do not qualify as force majeure.
Authority observed that even after granting a one-year extension due to the Covid pandemic the project was still incomplete by the extended possession date. Therefore, builder has violated the provisions of Section 18 of RERA, 2016 and the complainant is entitled to seek relief for the delay.
Authority also noted that all projects registered with the Authority received a one-year extension due to the pandemic and lockdown. Therefore, the Authority directed the builder to pay interest to the complainant from January 1, 2022 until the builder offers possession of the showrooms to the complainant after obtaining the full occupancy certificate for the project.
Case – Kohinoor Televideo Pvt Ltd Versus Deron Properties Pvt Ltd A/W 1 other
Citation - Complaint No. CC005000000096064 & 1 other