MahaRERA Orders Builder To Pay Interest To Homebuyers Of Suburbia Estate For Delayed Possession
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), has directed the builder to pay interest to the homebuyers for the delay in handing over possession of the flat. The complaint was filed by four homebuyers who booked flats in the builder's project Suburbia Estate Phase I, situated in Pune. Background Facts The...
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), has directed the builder to pay interest to the homebuyers for the delay in handing over possession of the flat. The complaint was filed by four homebuyers who booked flats in the builder's project Suburbia Estate Phase I, situated in Pune.
Background Facts
The homebuyers (Complainants) purchased flats in the Suburbia Estate Phase 1 project in Taluka Haveli, Pune, and signed agreements to buy them at costs of Rs. 29,80,600/-, Rs. 28,52,169/-, Rs. 29,35,314/-, and Rs. 25,07,412/- respectively.
Homebuyer No 1 (Complainant no. 1) enrolled in the PNB-Subvention scheme "No EMI till Possession", where the builder (Respondent) initially paid Pre-EMIs until March 2020 but later stopped, promising to resume from April 2020 until possession.
Homebuyers contend that under section 18 of the RERA, the project is significantly delayed beyond the agreed-upon possession dates specified in their sale agreements. Despite a revised completion date of April 30, 2023, the builder has not handed over possession to them.
Homebuyers allege that the builder failed to disclose pending litigation affecting the project on the MahaRERA website and misused funds received from homebuyers. Therefore, the homebuyers filed a complaint before the authority seeking possession of the flat and interest for delayed possession under section 18 of the RERA.
Contentions of Builder
Firstly, Builder contended that the homebuyers failed to provide copies of the agreements for sale, which are necessary to support their claims under section 18 of the RERA. Secondly, the builder argued that the homebuyers did not include the builder's firm or its partners, who are parties to the agreement for sale, in their complaints. Additionally, some homebuyers didn't include co-owners as parties in their complaints.
Observation and Direction by Authority
Regarding the issue of joining the partners of the builder's firm (M/s. SSG Realty & Infra LLP) as parties to the complaints, the Authority observed that the agreements for sale were signed by a partner of the firm, acting as an authorized signatory on behalf of the partnership itself. Therefore, under settled law, a partnership firm is liable for actions taken by its partners, and all partners are jointly and severally liable for such actions.
Regarding the issue of not including the co-purchasers (wives of the complainant) as parties to the complaint, the Authority observed that legally, a husband and wife are considered a single legal entity. The complainant, being the first purchaser as per the uploaded documents, had the legal standing to file the complaint on behalf of the co-purchaser.
Regarding the issue of reimbursement of Pre-EMIs under the subvention scheme, the Authority observed that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising from tri-partite agreements or similar documents. Such matters fall under the purview of civil courts.
Furthermore, the Authority directed the builder to pay interest for delayed possession to the homebuyers under section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Case – Rakesh Narendra Dhopte Versus Pranay Shingi A/w 3 others
Citation - Complaint No. CC005000000085621 A/w 3 others