Maharashtra RERA Orders Builder To Hand Over Possession Of Flat To Homebuyer Following Many Years Of Delay

Background Facts

In 2010, the Homebuyer (Complainant) purchased a flat, two parking spaces, and exclusive amenities from the Builder (Respondents) for Rs.4,25,55,000. The Builder issued an allotment letter dated 20th December 2010, after receiving Rs.81,20,000 consideration from the Homebuyer. However, despite promises, possession was not granted, leading to disputes over payment schedules and cancellation notices from the Builder.

On 16th August 2018, the Homebuyer filed a Complaint before MahaRERA seeking reliefs under RERA, including possession and interest for delayed possession. Subsequently, on 8th May 2019, both parties entered into Consent Terms specifying possession by 31st March 2020, and interest for delayed possession. The terms also allowed for the withdrawal of the RERA complaint. Therefore, the Homebuyer filed a withdrawal application before MahaRERA and subsequently, the Complaint was later withdrawn by MahaRERA through its order dated 5th July 2019.

Further, the Homebuyer filed an Execution Application before MahaRERA seeking execution of the consent terms dated 8th May 2019. However, it was dismissed by MahaRERA through an order dated 26th December 2022, holding it as non-maintainable. The Homebuyer then filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging MahaRERA order dated 26th December 2022, which was disposed of by the High Court through its order dated 29 January 2024.

Further, in January 2023, the Builders demanded money from the Homebuyer for allegedly violating the consent terms. Despite reminders, the Builders did not fulfil their obligations and defaulted on loans, leading to multiple NCLT proceedings against them. The Homebuyer, fearing that insolvency proceedings can be initiated by NCLT against the Builder, filed a case before MahaRERA seeking possession of the flat, execution of the sale agreement, penalties for RERA violations by the Builders, and interim relief to prevent third-party rights on unsold flats.

Observation by Authority

Authority observed that the consent terms mutually signed by both parties subsequent to the allotment letter where the Builder offered a credit Rs.68,88,000/- as compensation for project delays to Homebuyer which was to be adjusted against the Homebuyer's dues.

Furthermore, authority observed that the Builder, by signing the consent terms, agreed not only to compensate the Homebuyer but also to pay additional compensation at a rate of Rs. 2,91,707/- per month. Since possession was not granted on specified time, the Builder is liable to fulfil these commitments, including payment of further compensation until the date of Occupation Certificate being obtained for the project, excluding the Covid-19 pandemic period.

Therefore, the Authority directed the Builder to hand over possession of the flat to the Homebuyer after the execution of the registered agreement for sale, without further demanding more payment for the flat.

Case Title – Upasna Bajaj Versus Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Pvt Ltd & others

Citation- Complaint No. CC006000000429328

Counsel for Complainant – Adv. Minil Shah i/b Ld. Adv. Nilesh Gala

Counsel for Respondents - Adv. Vibhav Krishna