Himachal RERA Directs Ahlawat Developers To Execute Sale Deed In Favor Of Homebuyer Within 2 Months

Background Facts

The homebuyer (Complainant), who is not a resident of Himachal Pradesh, booked a flat in Tower A-1 of the builder's (Respondent) project through an agreement dated 28th April 2011. The homebuyer paid the full consideration of ₹19,00,000/- to the builder.

However, despite receiving all the required documents and the full payment, the builder failed to execute and register the conveyance deed in favor of the homebuyer.

The homebuyer contended that the builder made excuses, claiming the original agreement was invalid and asked her to sign a new agreement on 22nd May 2016. The homebuyer then filed a consumer complaint (No. 95/2017) seeking execution of the conveyance deed. Despite the consumer court decree in the homebuyer's favor, the builder still did not execute the conveyance deed.

The homebuyer provided all necessary documents to obtain permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, which restricts the transfer of land to a non-agriculturist of the state.

However, the builder issued possession letters without obtaining a completion certificate or occupancy certificate from the authorities. Additionally, the builder made an illegal deduction of ₹1,14,922/- and demanded maintenance charges based on the possession letters.

Further, Homebuyer contended that Since 2011 she has paid the total sale consideration but has not received the executed sale deed. The builder has not obtained the necessary permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.

Therefore, feeling aggrieved, the homebuyer filed a complaint before the authority seeking a direction to the builder to execute and register the conveyance deed for the flat after obtaining the required permission under the Act in her favor.

Observation and Direction by Authority

The Authority held that since the issue of executing the sale deed had already been raised before the Consumer Court, which is competent to try such complaints, and the complaint was decreed in favor of the homebuyer after hearing the parties on merits, therefore a subsequent complaint before the RERA for the same relief is barred by the Principle of res judicata.

The Authority held that a significant amount of time has passed since the Consumer Commission issued the order, yet no sale deed has been executed to date. Therefore, although the homebuyer has not sought a refund, the Authority, under the power granted by Section 88 of RERA, 2016, can provide a refund to mitigate the hardship and deliver justice.

Authority referred to the Supreme Court decision in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [LL 2021 SC 641], where it was held that if the builder fails to give possession of the apartment, plot, or building within the time stipulated under the terms of the agreement, then the homebuyer's right under the RERA, 2016 to seek a refund or claim interest for delay is unconditional and absolute, regardless of unforeseen events or stay orders of the Court/Tribunal.

The Authority further held that, although much time has passed since the Consumer Court issued the order for the execution of the sale deed, if the sale deed is not executed within two more months, the builder will therefore have to refund the money along with interest.

Case – Sita Devi & anr Versus M/s Ahlawat Developer and Promoters

Citation - Complaint no. HPRERA2023022/C