REAL ESTATE MONTHLY DIGEST: NOVEMBER 2024

Haryana RERA Orders Raheja Developers To Pay Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession

Case – Dharampal Singh & anr Versus M/s Raheja Developers Limited

Citation – Complaint No : 2385 of 2023

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Vijay Kumar Goyal (Member), has directed M/s Raheja Developers Limited, to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession. Additionally, the Authority also held that the terms of agreement including Possession terms are biased in favor of the builder.

Haryana RERA Holds Ramprastha Promoters Liable For Delay Of Over 5 Years, Orders Interest To Homebuyer

Case – Vijay Kumar & anr Versus M/S Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Citation – Complaint no. 1214 of 2023

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Vijay Kumar Goyal (Member), has directed M/s Ramprastha promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession.

The builder was supposed to deliver possession of the flat in February 2018, but the homebuyer received the offer of possession only in April 2023. This delay resulted in the homebuyer filing a complaint before Haryana RERA.

Haryana RERA Orders Refund To Homebuyer Of Mahira Homes - 104 Following Revocation Of Project's Registration

Case – Sanjay Sharma Versus M/s Czar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd

Citation – Complaint no – 5985 of 2023

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), directed M/s Czar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer of Mahira Homes 104 along with interest following the revocation of the project's registration.

On 11 March 2024, authority revoked the registration of five projects of the builder which include Mahira Homes Sector 104, Mahira Homes Sector 68, Mahira Homes Sector 103, Mahira Homes Sector 63A and Mahira Homes Sector 95.

Delay Of Over 8 Years, Haryana RERA Directs KNS Infracon To Refund And Settle Homebuyer's Loan Account

Case – Bhaskar Das Versus M/s KNS Infracon Private Limited

Citation – Complaint No. 4840 of 2022

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed M/s KNS Infracon Private Limited to refund ₹93 Lakhs with interest to homebuyer who purchased a flat in their Capital Gateway Project.

Additionally, Authority directed builder to close the homebuyer's loan account with the bank using the refundable amount.

Haryana RERA Directs Pareena Infrastructures To Pay Interest, Execute Conveyance Deed In Favour Of Homebuyer

Case title – Tarakeswar das & anr versus Pareena infrastructures pvt. Ltd. & others

Citation – complaint no: 5638 of 2023

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Arun Kumar (Chairperson) has directed Pareena Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd to pay interest and execute conveyance deed in the favor of homebuyer.

Haryana RERA Orders Raheja Developers To Refund Three Homebuyers Of Raheja Revanta Project

Case – Arvinder Singh Aneia and Preeti Aneja Versus Raheja Developers Limited Along with 2 others

Citation – Complaint No. 2205/2023 and 2 others

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) has directed Raheja Developers to refund three homebuyers who purchased their flats in the Raheja Revanta Project in 2012 with interest. The homebuyers decided to withdraw from the project after the builder failed to hand over possession even after a delay of 7 years.

Haryana RERA Holds AKME Projects Liable For Over 10 Years Of Delay In Manesar Project, Orders Refund To Homebuyer

Case – Preeti Yadav & anr Vs. M/s AKME Projects Limited

Citation – Complaint no: 4246 of 2023

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) has directed M/s AKME Projects Ltd to refund the homebuyer due to a delay of over 10 years in handing over possession.

The homebuyer was expected to receive possession of the flat by 18 May 2014. However, authority found that as of 2024 the builder has still not obtained the occupation certificate from the relevant authority.

Haryana RERA Orders Ansal Housing To Pay Interest For Delay And Provide Possession Offer To Homebuyer Within Two Months

Case – Shri. Sohan Lal Kainth Versus M/s Ansal Housing and Constructions Limited & anr

Citation – Complaint No. 638 of 2024

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) has directed M/s Ansal Housing and Constructions Limited to pay interest and provide offer of possession to homebuyer within 2 months.

The homebuyer who booked a flat in 2011 expected possession by November 2015. However, due to the builder's failure to deliver the flat on time, the homebuyer approached the authority.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Withholding Deposit Without Any Prospect Of Delivering Possession: NCDRC Holds Realtech Development Liable For Deficiency In Service

Case Title: Vivek Gulati Vs. Realtech Developments And Infrastructure(India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: C.C. No. 1434/2018

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Karuna Nand Bajpayee and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that withholding the buyer's deposit amount beyond the estimated date without any prospect for delivering the possession amounts as deficiency in service.

NCDRC Holds Rajasthan Housing Board Liable For Deficiency In Service For Arbitrary Cancelling Booking

Case Title: Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Lata Chaudhary

Case Number: R. P. No. 733/2018

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Sudip Ahluwalia and Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, held that raising demand for additional amounts and arbitrary cancelling of the booked flat amounts as deficiency in service.

Buyer Cannot Be Made To Wait Indefinitely For Possession : NCDRC Holds Lodha Construction Liable For Deficiency In Service

Case Title: Mallela Muralidhar Vs. M/S. Lodha Healthy Construction & builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr

Case Number: F.A. No. 2326/2017

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that making buyers wait indefinitely for possession amounts to deficiency in service.

Failure To Fulfill Contractual Obligations: NCDRC Holds Dhwani Associate Developers Liable For Deficiency In Service

Case Title: Dhwani Associate Developers & Builders &Ors. Vs. Rajendra Talati & Anr.

Case Number: F.A. No. 2332/2017

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that failure to fulfill contractual obligations and delay in handing over possession amounts as deficiency in service.

Price Hike Without Proper Justification Arbitrary : NCDRC Holds Ghaziabad Development Authority Liable For Deficiency In Service

Case Title: Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Suresh Chandra Sharma

Case Number: R.P. No. 788/2020

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that a substantial price hike by the developer without a proper justification amounts as deficiency in service.

Reliance On Force Majeure Clause To Justify Prolonged Delays Unacceptable : NCDRC Holds Developer Liable For Deficiency In Service

Case Title: Late Mohan S. Kale Vs. Hillari Victor D'souza

Case Number: F.A. No. 404/2019

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that reliance on force majeure clauses to justify prolonged delays in possession is unacceptable and amounts to deficiency in service.

Intent Behind Purchasing Shop Was Self – Employment, NCDRC Holds Complainant As Consumer, Orders Refund

Case – Shraddha Sachan Versus Aura Buildwell Private Limited

Citation – First Appeal No. 933 Of 2020

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Bench, comprising AVM J. Rajendra (President), held that the complainant who purchased a shop in the builder's commercial project qualifies as a consumer as the intent behind the purchase was self employment.

The National Commission while holding the builder accountable for failing to provide possession on time directed the builder to refund Rs. 38 lakhs along with interest to the complainant.

Previously, the State Commission had dismissed the complainant's complaint on the grounds that the shop was intended for commercial use and therefore, the complainant did not fall under the definition of a consumer.

MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

MahaRERA Issues Order on Project Registration Eligibility and Real Estate Agent Fee Clause in Agreements for Sale

Order No – 62/2024 and 63/2024

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) has issued an order on 22nd October related to the eligibility criteria for project registration and the inclusion of real estate agent fee clauses in agreements for sale and Sale deeds.

MahaRERA Directs Godrej Properties To Refund Senior Citizen Who Canceled Their Booking Within One Month

Case – Kishore Shamji Chheda Versus Godrej Properties Limited

Citation – Complaint No. CC006000000193718

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ravindra Deshpande (Member – II), has directed Godrej Properties to refund Rs. 15 lakhs to a senior citizen who cancelled their booking within one month due to a family emergency. However, Authority refused to provide interest over the paid up amount.

MahaRERA Orders Relief To Nine Homebuyers Of Sahara Prime City Facing Delay Of Over 17 Years

Case Title – Suresh Sadashio Parate Versus Sahara City Homes & 8 Other Complaints

Citation – Complaint nos. CC004000000030406 &8 Other Complaints

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I), provided relief to nine homebuyers of the Sahara Prime City Nagpur project which has been facing a delay of more than 17 years.

Sahara Prime City, the real estate company of Sahara India Pariwar, is experiencing issues in completing its ongoing projects after the Supreme Court in 2013, prohibited all transactions of the Sahara group of companies and directed SEBI to control these transactions.

Failure To Provide Possession Of Two Showrooms On Time, MahaRERA Directs Pune Builder To Pay Interest To The Complainant

Case – Kohinoor Televideo Pvt Ltd Versus Deron Properties Pvt Ltd A/W 1 other

Citation - Complaint No. CC005000000096064 & 1 other

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.

Maharashtra RERA Directs Pune Housing And Area Development Board To Rectify Structural Defects In The Project

Case – Sharad Agrawal Versus Pune House & Area Development Board, MHADA

Citation – Complaint No. CC005000000106546

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member) has directed the Pune Housing and Area Development Board (PHADB) to rectify the structural defects in the project within 30 days.

Maharashtra RERA Holds Spenta Enclave Liable For Delay, Orders Interest To Homebuyers

Case – Anil Kishinchand Rajani & Anr Versus Spenta Enclave Pvt. Ltd A/W 1 other

Citation – Complaint No. CC006000000193129 A/W 1 other

While allowing the complaints of Two homebuyers, Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Manoj Saunik (Chairperson) directed Spenta Enclave to pay interest to the homebuyers for the delay in handing over possession of the flat.

Maharashtra RERA Directs Godrej Properties To Refund Booking Amount Paid By Homebuyer

Case – Sofia Bernard Swamy Versus Godrej Properties Limited & anr

Citation – Complaint No. CC005000000106820

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member – I) has directed Godrej Properties Limited.to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer after deducting 2% of the total consideration.

Due to personal reasons the homebuyer failed to pay the consideration for the flat she purchased. Consequently, the builder forfeited the amount prompting the homebuyer to approach the authority.

Maharashtra RERA Directs Pune Housing And Area Development Board To Rectify Structural Defects In The Project

Case – Sharad Agrawal Versus Pune House & Area Development Board, MHADA

Citation – Complaint No. CC005000000106546

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member) has directed the Pune Housing and Area Development Board (PHADB) to rectify the structural defects in the project within 30 days.

MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Whether CIDCO Falls Under Definition Of Promoter For Town Development Activities? MahaREAT Answers

Case – MCHI Versus CIDCO A/W 1 another

Citation – Appeal No. U-18 Of 2019 A/W 1 another

Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO), which is a fully owned undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra and functions as a special planning authority for the development of new towns, falls under the definition of a Promoter under RERA, 2016.

MahaREAT – Possession Date Extension Invalid Despite Meeting Attendance And Continued Payments

Case – Ravindra Laxman Vengurlekar & anr Versus ITMC Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Citation – APPEAL NO. ATOO6000000053319

Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that builder cannot change the possession date of the flat on the grounds that the homebuyer attended a meeting discussing the possession date extension and continued to pay installments after the possession date was extended.

Will Homebuyer Who Converted His Paid Amount Into Unsecured Loan Fall Under Definition Of Allottee? MahaREAT Answers

Case – M/s Coppersmith Energies and Project Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dimension Housing Realty LLP

Citation – APPEAL NO. ATOO6000000052420

Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that homebuyer who converts their paid amount into an unsecured loan will not fall under the definition of an allottee.

As the paid amounts are no longer considered as payments for the purchase of the Flat. Instead, they are recognized as a loan which removes the homebuyer from the status of an allottee.

MahaREAT - Escalation Costs Are Only Permissible From Execution Of Agreement Until Due Date Of Possession

Case Title: Chandrakant N. Shendkar & Anr. Versus Shri Sati Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Along with 2 others

Citation: Appeal Nos.AT0060000000053734, 93909 and 133986

While holding the builder notice demanding further payment from homebuyers on the grounds of escalation in the cost of building materials unlawful, Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Technical Member) ruled that escalation costs are only permissible from the execution of the sale agreement until the due date of possession.

MahaREAT - Escalation Costs Are Only Permissible From Execution Of Agreement Until Due Date Of Possession

Case Title: Chandrakant N. Shendkar & Anr. Versus Shri Sati Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Along with 2 others

Citation: Appeal Nos.AT0060000000053734, 93909 and 133986

While holding the builder notice demanding further payment from homebuyers on the grounds of escalation in the cost of building materials unlawful, Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) comprising Justice Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Shrikant M. Deshpande (Technical Member) ruled that escalation costs are only permissible from the execution of the sale agreement until the due date of possession.

TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Builder Cannot Forfeit Amount In Absence Of Agreement With Forfeiture Clause, Telangana RERA Orders Full Refund To Homebuyer

Case – Sri Bhavani Velivala Versus M/s Pagadala Constructions

Citation – COMPLAINT NO.1184 OF 2023

While directing the builder to refund the full amount paid by the homebuyer for the purchase the flat, Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), held that forfeiture is only applicable when a formal agreement with a forfeiture clause has been executed between the homebuyer and builder.

TSRERA Orders Refund To Homebuyer Who Paid Builder Without Verifying Project Registration, Refuses To Provide Interest

Case Title – Sri Sharath Chandupatla Versus M/S. Buildox Private Limited

Citation – Complaint No.520 Of 2024

Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member) and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member) directed the builder to refund the initial amount paid by the homebuyer for purchasing a flat in the builder unregistered project.

Authority refused to provide interest on the amount holding that it was the homebuyer duty to perform due diligence before making the payment to the builder.

Telangana RERA Imposes Penalty Of Rs. 17.88 Lakhs On Sterling Homes For Delays & Deviations From Sanctioned Plan

Case – Allam Nagaraju & 14 others Versus M/s Sterling Homes Private Ltd

Citation - COMPLAINT NO.45 OF 2024

While hearing the complaints of 15 homebuyers, Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member) and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member) imposed a penalty of ₹17.88 lakhs on M/s Sterling Homes Private Ltd for delays and deviations from the original sanctioned plan.

The builder merged the clubhouse facility which was originally meant for the homebuyers of Phase I of the project with the upcoming Phase II.

RAJASTHAN REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Delay Of More Than 12 Years In Providing Possession Of Apartment, Rajasthan RERA Directs Sahara Prime City To Refund

Case – Mustafa Khan & Others Versus Sahara Prime City Limited

Citation – Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-N-2024-7477

Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) Bench, comprising Sudhir Kumar Sharma (Member), has directed Sahara Prime City Limited, the builder, to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer along with interest. The homebuyer was allotted an apartment in August, 2009 and was expecting possession by October, 2012.

RAJASTHAN REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Rajasthan REAT Directs Air Force Naval Housing Board To Pay Interest To Homebuyers

Cases - Air Force Naval Housing Board Versus Arpita Jain Garg and others

Citation - Appeal No.139/2024 in Complaint No.RAJ-RERA-C-2022-5465 and others

Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), comprising Yudhisthir Sharma (Judicial Member), has directed the Air Force Naval Housing Board to pay interest to homebuyers in accordance with the RERA rules, which stipulate an interest rate of SBI MCLR + 2%. This decision comes after the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) had previously ordered only 3% interest for delayed possession to the homebuyers.

WEST BENGAL REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

WB REAT Directs Builder To Pay Settlement Of Over ₹2 Crores To Homebuyer For Failure To Deliver Possession Since 2017

Case – M/s. Shrishti Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd Versus Partha Pratim Biswas

Citation - APPEAL NO. WBREAT/APPEAL No. – 05/2024

West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson), Gour Sunder Banerjee (Judicial Member), and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administration Member), disposed of the appeal after the builder made the fifth and final installment to the homebuyer as part of the settlement agreement.

Instead of disposing of the appeal on the date the settlement agreement was reached, the Tribunal monitored the builder's installment payments.

WB REAT Upholds Authority's Decision Directing Builder To Refund ₹11 Lakh To Homebuyer, Initiates Proceedings For Selling Unregistered Project

Case Title – M/S Maa Batai Construction Versus Smt. Bharti Das & anr

Citation – WBREAT/APPEAL NO. — 01/2024

While upholding the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) order directing the builder to refund the homebuyer's paid amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- with interest, West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson), Gour Sunder Banerjee (Judicial Member), and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administration Member), initiated proceedings against the builder for violating Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Section 3 stipulates that that no builder can advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale any real estate project without registering it with Authority.

WB REAT Facilitates Settlement Between Builder And Homebuyer Over Termination Of Flat Booking Due To Non-Payment Of Total Consideration

Case – Smt. Seema Pandey Versus M/s P.S. Group Realty Pvt. Ltd.

Citation – WBREAT / APPEAL No. - 009/2024

West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) bench, comprising Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson) and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administration Member), oversaw and facilitated a settlement between a builder and a homebuyer.

The homebuyer had purchased a flat in the builder's project, but his booking was terminated by the builder after he failed to pay the remaining amount on time.

PUNJAB REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Punjab RERA Orders Omaxe Chandigarh Extension To Pay Interest To Homebuyer For Delayed Possession

Case – Babita Katoch & anr Versus M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developments Pvt. Ltd.

Citation – RERA/GC No.0280 of 2023

Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench consisting of Binod Kumar Singh (Member), directed M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developments Pvt. Ltd. Which is a subsidiary of Real Estate company Omaxe Ltd. to pay interest to homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession of the flat.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II (SOUTH DELHI)

Delhi District Commission Orders Shree Vardhman Developers To Refund Amount Paid By Homebuyer

Case – Jasvinder Singh Versus Sree Vardhman Developers

Citation – CC/280/2021

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II (South Delhi) bench comprising Monika A Srivastava (President), Dr. Rajender Dhar (Member) and Ritu Garodia (Member) directed Shree Vardhman Developers Pvt. Ltd (Builder) to refund 48 Lakhs with interest to homebuyer for delayed possession and deficiency in service.

KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Delayed Possession And Failure To Pay Pre-EMI, Karnataka RERA Directs Ozone Realtors To Refund Rs. 86 Lakhs To Homebuyer

Case – Anand Puranik & anr Versus Ozone Realtors Private Limited

Citation – 00098/2024

Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Neelmani N. Raju (Member) has directed Ozone Realtors Private Limited to refund Rs. 86.32 lakhs to the homebuyer after the builder failed to provide possession of the flat on time and did not pay the Pre-EMI.

Karnataka RERA Directs Ozone Urbana Infra Developers To Refund Rs. 1.08 Crores To Homebuyer For Delay

Case – A Hanumantha Char Versus Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Private Ltd

Citation – Complaint No: 00173/2024

Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Neelmani N Raju (Member) has directed Ozone Urbana Infra Developers to refund Rs. 1.08 crores to the homebuyer after the builder failed to provide possession of the flat on time.

The homebuyer purchased a flat in the builder's Bengaluru Rural project to enjoy his retirement in a pollution-free green belt, away from the city. He was expecting possession of his flat by June 2023.

KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Karnataka REAT Directs Builder To Provide Car Parking Space Without Charging Extra Money

Case – Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. Versus Mr. Venkatesh S. Arbatti & others

Citation – APPEAL NO. (K-REAT) 05/2023

Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) Bench, comprising Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. (Judicial Member) and Mahendra Jain (Administrative Member) directed the builder to provide a car parking space to the homebuyer with their 1BHK flat without charging any extra money.

The Tribunal rejected the builder's contention that they had mistakenly mentioned providing the car parking space in the sale agreement.

HIMACHAL REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Delay Of 3.5 Years In Delivering Possession Of Plot, Himachal RERA Directs Builder To Pay Rs. 2.92 Crore As Interest To Complainant

Case Title – Shri Manish Kumar Newar HUF & another Versus Delanco Realtors Private Limited & others

Citation – Complaint No. HPRERA2024015/C

Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Justice Srikant Baldi (Chairperson) directed the builder to pay Rs. 2.92 crore to the complainant who received the offer of possession of plot after a delay of 3.5 years.