RERA WEEKLY ROUND UP: NOVEMBER 25 – DECEMBER 1

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.

HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

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.

MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

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.

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.