Haryana RERA – Increasing Super Built Up Area Without Prior Permission Of Complainant Is Bad In Eyes Of Law
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice Ashok Sangwan (Member), has held that a builder increasing the super built-up area of a booked flat from 707 sq. ft. to 874.09 sq. ft. without any prior permission from the complainant is bad in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the Authority has quashed the builder's demand letter requesting additional payment...
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice Ashok Sangwan (Member), has held that a builder increasing the super built-up area of a booked flat from 707 sq. ft. to 874.09 sq. ft. without any prior permission from the complainant is bad in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the Authority has quashed the builder's demand letter requesting additional payment from the complainant due to the increase in super built-up area.
In real estate, super built-up area includes the apartment's carpet area plus shared common spaces like lobbies, staircases, and amenities, proportionately divided among all units in the building.
Background Facts
The complainant booked a unit in the builder's upcoming commercial project Global Foyer with a super area of 707 sq. ft. and a total cost of Rs. 66,63,510. According to clause 17 of the buyer's agreement, the builder was required to offer possession within 36 months from the signing date. Despite the complainant paying Rs. 61,71,805 of the total cost, the builder failed to offer possession within the stipulated time.
After almost three years, on 15.07.2020, the builder sent a letter to the complainant demanding holding charges, maintenance charges, and threatening to charge 18% p.a. as overdue charges.
With no other recourse, the complainant protested via email on 22.03.2021, demanding a meeting with the director to discuss the unauthorized increase of over 10% in super area. Despite repeated requests, the builder neither explained the increase nor responded to inquiries about the service apartment's status.
Aggrieved by the builder's conduct, the complainant filed a complaint before the Authority, seeking interest on the deposited amount and the recall of the demand letter.
Authority Observation and Direction
The Authority noted that the occupation certificate for the building housing the complainant's unit was obtained by the builder on 05.04.2018. Subsequently, possession of the unit was offered to the complainant via letter dated 22.01.2019. Through the letter, the builder informed the complainant that the physical measurement of the unit showed an increase in super area by 167.09 sq. ft., or over 23%, bringing the total area to 874.09 sq. ft.
The Authority referred to their decision in the case of Varun Gupta v/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (4031 of 2019), wherein they held that the demand for extra payment on account of an increase in the super area by the builder-promoter from the allottee(s) is legal but subject to the condition that before raising such a demand, details must be given to the allottee(s). Without justification of the increase in the super area, any demand raised in this regard is liable to be quashed.
Therefore, the Authority held that demanding an increase in the super area without prior intimation and justification to the complainant is bad in the eyes of law. Consequently, the Authority quashed the demand letter, citing the well-settled principle that one cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing. Moreover, the Authority directed the builder to compensate the complainant with monthly interest at a rate of 10.85% per annum for the delay.
Case – Sohan Lal Swamy Versus Rajdarbar Assets Limited
Citation - Complaint No. 2020 of 2023