Stilt Parking Is Not Saleable Area; Promoter Cannot Separately Charge Homebuyer For Stilt Parking: TNREAT Upholds ₹2.36 Lakh Refund Against Arun Excello

 

M/s. Arun Excello Constructions LLP v. Meenakshi S.

Case: M/s. Arun Excello Constructions LLP v. Meenakshi S.
Case No.: Appeal No. 31 of 2026 & M.A. No. 95 of 2026
Forum: Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TNREAT)
Decision: 16 September 2026

Key issue: Whether a promoter can separately charge a homebuyer for a car-parking space situated in the stilt area of a residential project.

Facts: Meenakshi S. booked Flat No. 4419 in Block No. 4 of Arun Excello's Compact Homes – Narmada project at Singaperumal Koil, Chennai. An amount of ₹2.36 lakh was separately collected towards “Covered Parking (Including GST)” under the allotment letter. The homebuyer challenged the parking charge before TNRERA.

TNRERA directed Arun Excello to refund the ₹2.36 lakh with interest. The promoter appealed before TNREAT, contending, inter alia, that it had not sold any exclusive parking space and that the amount represented costs associated with the amenities/project.

Findings of TNREAT

TNREAT dismissed the promoter's appeal and upheld the refund. The Tribunal found that:

1. The allotment letter separately identified ₹2.36 lakh as the charge for covered parking.

2. The construction agreement did not include this amount as part of the construction cost.

3. The parking in question was situated in the stilt area.

4. A stilt parking space is not a separately saleable area, and therefore the promoter could not separately sell or charge the allottee for it.

The Tribunal relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., concerning the legal status of stilt parking.

Ratio

A promoter cannot separately sell or charge a homebuyer for a stilt parking space, since such parking is not a saleable area. Where the documentary record establishes that a separate amount was collected towards stilt parking, the amount is liable to be refunded with interest.

Practical significance

The decision reiterates the distinction between legitimate recovery of project/amenity costs and the sale of a specific stilt parking space. Merely describing the amount as an amenity or project-related charge will not protect the promoter where the allotment documentation demonstrates that a specific amount was separately collected towards covered/stilt parking.

TNREAT also permitted Meenakshi to withdraw the ₹3.88 lakh pre-deposit made by the promoter under Section 43(5) of RERA, together with accrued interest, if any. 

Builder Cannot Terminate Allotment for Non-Payment Without First Executing and Registering Agreement for Sale: MahaREAT

 

Builder Cannot Terminate Allotment for Non-Payment Without First Executing and Registering Agreement for Sale: MahaREAT

Case: Manojkumar Singh v. Era Realtors Pvt. Ltd.
Appeal No.: AT006000000204882 of 2024
Arising from: Complaint No. CC006000000282178 of 2019
Forum: Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT)
Decision: 7 September 2026
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (MH) 65

The dispute concerned a homebuyer whose allotment was terminated by Era Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on the ground of non-payment. MahaREAT held that the promoter could not rely upon the allottee's alleged default when the promoter itself had failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Section 13 of the RERA Act.

Key issue

Section 13 of RERA prohibits a promoter from accepting more than 10% of the cost of the apartment, plot or building as advance/application fee without first entering into a written Agreement for Sale and registering it under the applicable law.

The Tribunal found that the promoter had accepted amounts exceeding the statutory 10% threshold but had not executed and registered the Agreement for Sale.

Finding of MahaREAT

The Tribunal held that a promoter cannot terminate an allotment for alleged non-payment when the promoter itself has failed to execute the Agreement for Sale, as required under Section 13.

In other words, the promoter cannot simultaneously:

• accept more than 10% of the consideration without a registered Agreement for Sale;

• fail to comply with Section 13; and

• thereafter rely upon the allottee's failure to make further payments to terminate the allotment.

The Tribunal further held that the promoter's continuing failure to execute the Agreement for Sale amounted to a violation of Section 13 and constituted an unfair trade practice, attracting penalty under Section 61 of RERA.

Relief granted

MahaREAT allowed the homebuyer's appeal, set aside the MahaRERA order and directed the promoter to:

• refund ₹80.77 lakh to the homebuyer;

• pay interest on ₹1.008 crore at 2% above SBI's highest MCLR for the specified period;

• pay interest on the balance refund amount for the subsequent period up to the date of the order;

• pay a ₹10 lakh penalty under Section 61 for violation of Section 13; and

• pay ₹50,000 as costs.

Important RERA proposition

A promoter cannot take advantage of an allottee's alleged payment default to terminate the allotment when the promoter itself has failed to execute and register the Agreement for Sale after accepting more than 10% of the consideration, in violation of Section 13 of RERA.

This judgment is particularly relevant for cases involving cancellation/termination of allotment, payment defaults, Section 13 compliance, and the promoter's obligation to execute a registered Agreement for Sale.

Absence of Written Allotment Letter or Agreement Does Not, By Itself, Bar RERA Jurisdiction: Chhattisgarh High Court

Absence of Written Allotment Letter or Agreement Does Not, By Itself, Bar RERA Jurisdiction: Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Title: Fortune Resources and Properties LLP v. M/s Y.P. Goel and Associates & Anr.
Case No.: MA No. 105 of 2025
Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Coram: Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the mere absence of a written allotment letter or agreement for sale does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) where the complaint discloses a transaction relating to the alleged allotment or sale of a real estate asset.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed that the expression “aggrieved person” occurring in Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 35 of the Chhattisgarh RERA Rules, 2017, is of wide amplitude. The Court held that merely because there is no written document evidencing the allotment of a real estate property or an agreement between the parties, RERA's jurisdiction cannot automatically be excluded.

The dispute arose out of a complaint filed by Y.P. Goel and Associates, alleging that Fortune Resources and Properties LLP had entered into an oral arrangement for allotment and sale of Shop No. J-03, measuring 1,280 sq. ft., at Rama World, High Street, Swarn Bhoomi, Raipur, for a consideration of ₹75 lakh.

The complainant alleged that it had paid ₹5 lakh on December 31, 2020, ₹10 lakh on February 3, 2021 and a further ₹10 lakh on September 6, 2022 towards the proposed transaction. It was further alleged that despite the payments, possession of the shop was not handed over and no sale deed was executed. According to the complainant, the amount of ₹25 lakh was ultimately returned after approximately three years.

After a legal notice was issued on April 5, 2024, Fortune Resources denied the existence of any oral agreement and disputed the alleged allotment of the shop.

RERA, by its order dated July 31, 2024, dismissed the complaint, primarily on the ground that there was no written agreement between the parties and that the material on record did not clearly establish payment of sale consideration in respect of the alleged transaction. RERA consequently held that the complaint did not fall within its jurisdiction under the RERA Act.

The complainant thereafter approached the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT). By order dated April 4, 2025, the Tribunal set aside RERA's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, observing that an oral agreement could be examined within the RERA framework and that the complainant could fall within the expression “aggrieved person”.

Fortune Resources challenged the REAT's order before the High Court under Section 58 of the RERA Act. It contended that mere payment or deposit of money could not confer the status of an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the Act. According to the appellant, there had to be an application or request for allotment, its acceptance by the promoter and a consequential allotment.

The High Court, however, found that RERA had considered the matter primarily from the perspective of the definition of “allottee” under Section 2(d) without adequately considering the scope of Section 31, which enables an aggrieved person to approach the Authority in respect of a violation or contravention of the Act, rules or regulations.

The Court noted that the pleadings disclosed a transaction involving payment of money in connection with the alleged allotment and sale of the shop. It observed that the existence and nature of such transaction required appropriate consideration and could not be rejected merely because there was no written allotment document or agreement.

The Court also noted that RERA's order did not indicate whether the procedure contemplated under Rule 35(3) of the Chhattisgarh RERA Rules, 2017, including the calling for relevant documents or evidence, had been followed. According to the Court, the Authority ought to have undertaken the requisite enquiry before reaching a conclusion on the complaint.

The High Court accordingly dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law warranting admission of the appeal. It directed RERA to reconsider and decide the complaint in accordance with the directions contained in paragraph 55 of the REAT's order and in accordance with law.

Key Takeaway

The judgment reiterates that the absence of a written allotment letter or agreement for sale is not, by itself, sufficient to exclude RERA's jurisdiction. Where the pleadings disclose a transaction relating to the alleged allotment or sale of a real estate asset, the Authority must examine the material and conduct the appropriate enquiry before determining whether the complainant is entitled to relief under the RERA Act.

2/3rd Allottee Consent Under Section 14(2) of RERA Required Only for Alterations Beyond the Development Agreed Under the Agreement for Sale: K-RERA”

 

2/3rd Allottee Consent Under Section 14(2) of RERA Required Only for Alterations Beyond the Development Agreed Under the Agreement for Sale: K-RERA

Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association v. L&T Realty Developers Limited

Case: Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association v. L&T Realty Developers Limited
Forum: Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA)
Complaint No.: 00772/2025

The matter concerned a complaint by the Raintree Boulevard Apartment Owners Association against L&T Realty Developers Limited in relation to alleged unauthorised modifications and commercial development associated with the project. The Association sought, inter alia, revocation of the promoter's project registration and demolition of the commercial buildings.

Key finding

K-RERA held that the requirement of obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the allottees under Section 14(2) of the RERA Act is attracted only where the proposed alteration is beyond what was mutually agreed between the promoter and the allottees under the agreement/sale documents.

In other words, not every change or alteration in a real estate project automatically requires consent of two-thirds of the allottees. The first question is whether the proposed change goes beyond the development that was contractually agreed with the allottees.

K-RERA relied upon an earlier appellate tribunal ruling in reaching this conclusion. The Authority consequently dismissed the Association's complaint seeking revocation of registration and demolition.

Legal proposition

The decision can be usefully stated as:

The statutory requirement of consent of two-thirds of the allottees is triggered when the promoter proposes an alteration which goes beyond what was mutually agreed under the agreement for sale; the mere existence of an alteration does not, by itself, attract Section 14(2).

Relevance under RERA

The ruling is particularly relevant when dealing with allegations concerning:

1. change in sanctioned plans;
2. alteration/addition to the project;
3. development of commercial components;
4. demolition/removal of structures;
5. whether 2/3rd allottee consent is mandatory; and
6. the scope of Section 14(2) of the RERA Act.

The decision also illustrates the importance of examining the agreement for sale and the original contractual representation regarding the project, rather than treating every subsequent modification as requiring statutory consent.

Co-operative Society Without Land or Layout for Real Estate Project Not a Promoter Under RERA: Karnataka REAT

Case Title: V. Suresh Kumar v. BSNL Employee Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Appeal No. (K-REAT) 3/2026

The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Karnataka REAT) has held that a housing co-operative society that had neither acquired land for development nor undertaken any real estate project could not be treated as a “Promoter” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act).

The Tribunal consequently held that a complaint seeking relief under RERA was not maintainable before the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, as the complainant could not be treated as an “Allottee” and the society did not fall within the statutory definition of a “Promoter.”

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice J.M. Khazi and Judicial Member Santhosh Kumar Shetty N. dismissed an appeal filed against the BSNL Employee Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. and upheld the order of Karnataka RERA dismissing the complaint.

No Land Acquired, No Real Estate Project

The Tribunal observed:

“Undisputedly, the Respondent No.1/Co-operative Society has not acquired any land for development and consequently it does not fall into the definition of Promoter and there is no project in existence let alone Complainant could be called as an Allottee.”

The appellant had worked with BSNL for more than 18 years and had become a member of the society, which was formed by BSNL employees with the objective of providing houses or residential plots to its members at relatively lower rates.

According to the appellant, the society represented that sites were available at Madhavanagara and accepted payments towards the proposed BSNL Madhavanagara Project Phase-II, situated off Nelamangala Road.

The appellant paid an aggregate amount of ₹7,66,800 in 2013 and 2014 towards the proposed purchase of a site. However, the site was not delivered or registered in his favour. Despite repeated follow-ups seeking a refund, the amount was allegedly neither refunded nor was the promised site registered.

Society Contended RERA Had No Jurisdiction

Before Karnataka RERA, the society contended that the complaint was not maintainable under the RERA Act.

It submitted that the alleged project was not registered with the Authority and that the receipts issued to the appellant did not constitute allotment letters. According to the society, the amounts were not collected towards any identified or specific plot and no Agreement for Sale had been executed between the parties.

The society further maintained that it had not acquired any land for development. Consequently, there was no real estate project within the meaning of the RERA Act and the society could not be regarded as a Promoter.

It also disputed the appellant's status as an Allottee, contending that no plot or apartment had been allotted or transferred to him.

Karnataka RERA accepted these submissions and dismissed the complaint.

Sections 2(d), 2(zk) and 2(zn) of RERA Examined

Challenging the RERA order, the appellant contended before the Tribunal that the Authority had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and relevant provisions of the Act.

He also argued that since the project remained incomplete, he was entitled to relief under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

The Tribunal examined the statutory framework governing the relationship between a Promoter and an Allottee.

Section 18 provides remedies to an Allottee where a Promoter fails to complete a project or give possession in accordance with the Agreement for Sale. Where an Allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, the provision contemplates refund of the amount paid, together with interest and compensation in accordance with the Act.

The Tribunal noted that:

• Section 2(zn) defines a “Real Estate Project” to include development of land into plots or apartments;

• Section 2(zk) defines a “Promoter” to include a person who develops land into plots or apartments; and

• Section 2(d) defines an “Allottee” as a person to whom a plot, apartment or building has been allotted, sold or otherwise transferred by the Promoter.

Applying these provisions, the Tribunal found that the society had not acquired any land for development and no real estate project was in existence.

Consequently, the society could not be treated as a Promoter and the appellant could not be regarded as an Allottee under the Act.

Membership and Collection of Money Not Sufficient

The Tribunal noted that the society had enrolled members and collected various amounts towards the proposed purchase of sites, which were to be allotted if and when the society developed the requisite project or layout.

However, the mere fact that money had been collected from members towards prospective sites did not, in the circumstances of the case, bring the transaction within the statutory framework of RERA.

The Tribunal therefore agreed with Karnataka RERA that the RERA Act had no application to the dispute and that the complaint was not maintainable before the Authority.

Registration Requirement Cannot Arise Where No Project Exists

The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Newtech and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Macrotech while considering the jurisdictional issue.

It observed that where a project has not been registered, the Authority must first determine whether the project was one that was required to be registered under Section 3 or was exempt from registration. If registration was not required, the Authority could not assume jurisdiction over the complaint merely on the basis of the alleged transaction.

Section 3 generally requires prior registration of a real estate project before a Promoter can advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale any plot, apartment or building, subject to the statutory exemptions and provisions applicable to ongoing projects.

In the present case, however, the issue was more fundamental. The Tribunal found that no project had come into existence at all, since the society had not acquired land for development.

Accordingly, the statutory obligations imposed upon a Promoter and the remedies available to an Allottee could not be invoked against the society.

Alternative Remedies Available

While dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal observed that the appellant was not without a remedy. He was free to approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the Consumer Forum for recovery of the amount paid.

The Tribunal also took note of the fact that counsel appearing for the society had made an offer to refund the amount with 6% interest. The appellant, however, did not accept the offer.

Finding no justifiable ground to interfere with the order passed by Karnataka RERA on September 2, 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

There was no order as to costs.

Key Takeaway

The Karnataka REAT's decision highlights that the applicability of RERA depends upon the existence of the statutory ingredients of a real estate project, Promoter and Allottee. Mere membership of a housing co-operative society and payment of money towards a proposed future site do not, by themselves, establish the existence of a real estate project or confer the status of an Allottee under RERA where the society has neither acquired land nor undertaken development of the project.

MahaRERA - To ensure that the said project is not jeopardized due to the outflow of finances it is directed that the amounts of interest shall be paid by the respondent promoter to the said complainants after obtaining the full occupancy certificate.

 MahaRERA - To ensure that the said project is not jeopardized due to the outflow of finances it is directed that the amounts of interest shall be paid by the respondent promoter to the said complainants after obtaining the full occupancy certificate.

Anil Kumar Dattani Versus Real Gem Buildtech Private Limited & Ors. Complaint No. CC006000000292852 Before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority Mumbai Decided on 13th May 2024)

Fact of the Case :-

• Respondent no. 1 i.e. Realgem Buildtech Private Limited  is the Promoter of the project.
• Respondent no. 2 i.e. Bhishma Realty Limited is the landowner of the project.
• Respondent no. 3 i.e Kindmaker Developers Private Limited  has been appointed as a Development Manager under the development management agreement dated 18-03-2018 and is basically an agent of the respondent no. 1 functioning for a fixed fee. the respondent no. 3 was appointed for the purposes of 
• inter alia managing, 
• monitoring, 
• supervising and 
• coordinating the construction and 
• development of the said project 
• together with the sales and marketing related activities including customer relationship management.

• The subject matter of the case is flat bearing no. 2302 on 23rd floor in the “RUSTOMJEE CROWN - PHASE I" at Prabhadevi, Mumbai.
• On 16-01-2019 The respondent issued  the allotment letter in the complainant's name. 
• On 25-01-2019 The complainant and the respondents entered into a registered agreement for sale.
• The respondent had assured to handover the possession of the said flat on 31-12-2021.
• The Flat was for a total consideration of Rs. 7,69,86,000/-
• The Complainant has already paid Rs. 7,41,83,995/- to the respondents from time to time..
• The respondent did not give the possession by the said date.
• On 27-09-2022 the complainant filed the present complaint..

Submissions by Appellant:-

• As per the RERA, the all 3 respondents are jointly and severally liable as per circular no. 12/2017 dated 04-12-2017.

Submissions by Respondent(s):

• The date of possession mentioned in the agreement for sale is 31-12-2021 and the same was subject to provisions of clause 8 of the said agreement which provides for a reasonable extension on occurrence of mitigating events.
• The Covid 19 pandemic was a force majeure event and therefore covered under clause 8 of the agreement for sale. 

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

• the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 being the promoters of this project registered with the MahaRERA are liable to perform their part as stipulated in the registered agreement for sale dated 25-01-2019 signed with the complainant herein.
• With regards to respondent taking the plea on the issue of jurisdiction as per clause 16.1 of the said agreement for sale wheras the complainant has agreed for arbitration in case of any dispute arising in respect of the said agreement for sale.MahaRERA is of the view that the same is raised at a belated stage by filing its reply on record of MahaRERA,
• Further, there are no explicit provisions under RERA about the arbitration clause. Hence,the same stands rejected.
• As far as the issue raised by the complainant about GST input credit not being provided to him, the MahaRERA is of the prima facie view that the same does not fall within the purview of the MahaRERA under the provisions of the RERA. 
• However, it is for the concerned competent forum to deal with such issues. Hence, the complainant need to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the said grievances about the GST. 
• The MahaRERA is not going to deal with the said issue for want of jurisdiction.
• the MahaRERA is of the view that the delay cited by the respondent such as delay in obtaining CFO NOC due to change in fire norms and the delay in obtaining NOC from MPCB do not fall within the force majeure factors mentioned in the draft model agreement for sale prescribed under the RERA and the relevant rules made thereunder.

Court’s Order:-

• The respondent promoter is directed to pay interest for the delayed possession to the complainants from 01-01-2023 ( as per agreements for sale i.e. 31-12-2021 + 1 year grace period due to Covid-19 Pandemic i.e. 31-12-2022) for every month till the actual date of possession of the said flat to the complainant or till the date of offer of possession with OC if any obtained by the respondent promoter. 
• to ensure that the said project is not jeopardized due to the outflow of finances it is directed that the amounts of interest shall be paid by the respondent promoter to the said complainants after obtaining the full occupancy certificate.

MAHA RERA - The delay in obtaining NOCs including Fire NOC do not fall within the force majeure factors prescribed under the RERA and the relevant rules made thereunder.

 MAHA RERA - The delay in obtaining NOCs  including Fire NOC do not fall within the force majeure factors prescribed under the RERA and the relevant rules made thereunder.

Anil Kumar Dattani Versus Real Gem Buildtech Private Limited & Ors. Complaint No. CC006000000292852 Before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority Mumbai Decided on 13th May 2024)

Fact of the Case :-

• Respondent no. 1 i.e. Realgem Buildtech Private Limited  is the Promoter of the project.
• Respondent no. 2 i.e. Bhishma Realty Limited is the landowner of the project.
• Respondent no. 3 i.e Kindmaker Developers Private Limited  has been appointed as a Development Manager under the development management agreement dated 18-03-2018 and is basically an agent of the respondent no. 1 functioning for a fixed fee. the respondent no. 3 was appointed for the purposes of 
• inter alia managing, 
• monitoring, 
• supervising and 
• coordinating the construction and 
• development of the said project 
• together with the sales and marketing related activities including customer relationship management.

• The subject matter of the case is flat bearing no. 2302 on 23rd floor in the “RUSTOMJEE CROWN - PHASE I" at Prabhadevi, Mumbai.
• On 16-01-2019 The respondent issued  the allotment letter in the complainant's name. 
• On 25-01-2019 The complainant and the respondents entered into a registered agreement for sale.
• The respondent had assured to handover the possession of the said flat on 31-12-2021.
• The Flat was for a total consideration of Rs. 7,69,86,000/-
• The Complainant has already paid Rs. 7,41,83,995/- to the respondents from time to time..
• The respondent did not give the possession by the said date.
• On 27-09-2022 the complainant filed the present complaint..

Submissions by Appellant:-

• As per the RERA, the all 3 respondents are jointly and severally liable as per circular no. 12/2017 dated 04-12-2017.

Submissions by Respondent(s):

• The date of possession mentioned in the agreement for sale is 31-12-2021 and the same was subject to provisions of clause 8 of the said agreement which provides for a reasonable extension on occurrence of mitigating events.
• The Covid 19 pandemic was a force majeure event and therefore covered under clause 8 of the agreement for sale. 

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

• the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 being the promoters of this project registered with the MahaRERA are liable to perform their part as stipulated in the registered agreement for sale dated 25-01-2019 signed with the complainant herein.
• With regards to respondent taking the plea on the issue of jurisdiction as per clause 16.1 of the said agreement for sale wheras the complainant has agreed for arbitration in case of any dispute arising in respect of the said agreement for sale.MahaRERA is of the view that the same is raised at a belated stage by filing its reply on record of MahaRERA,
• Further, there are no explicit provisions under RERA about the arbitration clause. Hence,the same stands rejected.
• As far as the issue raised by the complainant about GST input credit not being provided to him, the MahaRERA is of the prima facie view that the same does not fall within the purview of the MahaRERA under the provisions of the RERA. 
• However, it is for the concerned competent forum to deal with such issues. Hence, the complainant need to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the said grievances about the GST. 
• The MahaRERA is not going to deal with the said issue for want of jurisdiction.
• the MahaRERA is of the view that the delay cited by the respondent such as delay in obtaining CFO NOC due to change in fire norms and the delay in obtaining NOC from MPCB do not fall within the force majeure factors mentioned in the draft model agreement for sale prescribed under the RERA and the relevant rules made thereunder.

Court’s Order:-

• The respondent promoter is directed to pay interest for the delayed possession to the complainants from 01-01-2023 ( as per agreements for sale i.e. 31-12-2021 + 1 year grace period due to Covid-19 Pandemic i.e. 31-12-2022) for every month till the actual date of possession of the said flat to the complainant or till the date of offer of possession with OC if any obtained by the respondent promoter. 
• to ensure that the said project is not jeopardized due to the outflow of finances it is directed that the amounts of interest shall be paid by the respondent promoter to the said complainants after obtaining the full occupancy certificate.

Maha RERA - Issue of GST input credit does not fall within the purview of the provisions of the RERA. Hence, the complainant need to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the said grievances about the GST.

Issue of  GST input credit does not fall within the purview of the  provisions of the RERA. Hence, the complainant need to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the said grievances about the GST.  

Anil Kumar Dattani Versus Real Gem Buildtech Private Limited & Ors. Complaint No. CC006000000292852 Before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority Mumbai Decided on 13th May 2024)

Fact of the Case :-

• Respondent no. 1 i.e. Realgem Buildtech Private Limited  is the Promoter of the project.
• Respondent no. 2 i.e. Bhishma Realty Limited is the landowner of the project.
• Respondent no. 3 i.e Kindmaker Developers Private Limited  has been appointed as a Development Manager under the development management agreement dated 18-03-2018 and is basically an agent of the respondent no. 1 functioning for a fixed fee. the respondent no. 3 was appointed for the purposes of 
• inter alia managing, 
• monitoring, 
• supervising and 
• coordinating the construction and 
• development of the said project 
• together with the sales and marketing related activities including customer relationship management.

• The subject matter of the case is flat bearing no. 2302 on 23rd floor in the “RUSTOMJEE CROWN - PHASE I" at Prabhadevi, Mumbai.
• On 16-01-2019 The respondent issued  the allotment letter in the complainant's name. 
• On 25-01-2019 The complainant and the respondents entered into a registered agreement for sale.
• The respondent had assured to handover the possession of the said flat on 31-12-2021.
• The Flat was for a total consideration of Rs. 7,69,86,000/-
• The Complainant has already paid Rs. 7,41,83,995/- to the respondents from time to time..
• The respondent did not give the possession by the said date.
• On 27-09-2022 the complainant filed the present complaint..

Submissions by Appellant:-

• As per the RERA, the all 3 respondents are jointly and severally liable as per circular no. 12/2017 dated 04-12-2017.

Submissions by Respondent(s):

• The date of possession mentioned in the agreement for sale is 31-12-2021 and the same was subject to provisions of clause 8 of the said agreement which provides for a reasonable extension on occurrence of mitigating events.
• The Covid 19 pandemic was a force majeure event and therefore covered under clause 8 of the agreement for sale. 

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

• the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 being the promoters of this project registered with the MahaRERA are liable to perform their part as stipulated in the registered agreement for sale dated 25-01-2019 signed with the complainant herein.
• With regards to respondent taking the plea on the issue of jurisdiction as per clause 16.1 of the said agreement for sale wheras the complainant has agreed for arbitration in case of any dispute arising in respect of the said agreement for sale.MahaRERA is of the view that the same is raised at a belated stage by filing its reply on record of MahaRERA,
• Further, there are no explicit provisions under RERA about the arbitration clause. Hence,the same stands rejected.
• As far as the issue raised by the complainant about GST input credit not being provided to him, the MahaRERA is of the prima facie view that the same does not fall within the purview of the MahaRERA under the provisions of the RERA. 
• However, it is for the concerned competent forum to deal with such issues. Hence, the complainant need to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the said grievances about the GST. 
• The MahaRERA is not going to deal with the said issue for want of jurisdiction.
• the MahaRERA is of the view that the delay cited by the respondent such as delay in obtaining CFO NOC due to change in fire norms and the delay in obtaining NOC from MPCB do not fall within the force majeure factors mentioned in the draft model agreement for sale prescribed under the RERA and the relevant rules made thereunder.

Court’s Order:-

• The respondent promoter is directed to pay interest for the delayed possession to the complainants from 01-01-2023 ( as per agreements for sale i.e. 31-12-2021 + 1 year grace period due to Covid-19 Pandemic i.e. 31-12-2022) for every month till the actual date of possession of the said flat to the complainant or till the date of offer of possession with OC if any obtained by the respondent promoter. 
• to ensure that the said project is not jeopardized due to the outflow of finances it is directed that the amounts of interest shall be paid by the respondent promoter to the said complainants after obtaining the full occupancy certificate.

Maha RERA - There are no explicit provisions under RERA about the arbitration clause in agreement for Sale

There are no explicit provisions under RERA about the arbitration clause in agreement for Sale 

Anil Kumar Dattani Versus Real Gem Buildtech Private Limited & Ors. Complaint No. CC006000000292852 Before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority Mumbai Decided on 13th May 2024)

Fact of the Case :-

• Respondent no. 1 i.e. Realgem Buildtech Private Limited  is the Promoter of the project.
• Respondent no. 2 i.e. Bhishma Realty Limited is the landowner of the project.
• Respondent no. 3 i.e Kindmaker Developers Private Limited  has been appointed as a Development Manager under the development management agreement dated 18-03-2018 and is basically an agent of the respondent no. 1 functioning for a fixed fee. the respondent no. 3 was appointed for the purposes of 
• inter alia managing, 
• monitoring, 
• supervising and 
• coordinating the construction and 
• development of the said project 
• together with the sales and marketing related activities including customer relationship management.

• The subject matter of the case is flat bearing no. 2302 on 23rd floor in the “RUSTOMJEE CROWN - PHASE I" at Prabhadevi, Mumbai.
• On 16-01-2019 The respondent issued  the allotment letter in the complainant's name. 
• On 25-01-2019 The complainant and the respondents entered into a registered agreement for sale.
• The respondent had assured to handover the possession of the said flat on 31-12-2021.
• The Flat was for a total consideration of Rs. 7,69,86,000/-
• The Complainant has already paid Rs. 7,41,83,995/- to the respondents from time to time..
• The respondent did not give the possession by the said date.
• On 27-09-2022 the complainant filed the present complaint..

Submissions by Appellant:-

• As per the RERA, the all 3 respondents are jointly and severally liable as per circular no. 12/2017 dated 04-12-2017.

Submissions by Respondent(s):

• The date of possession mentioned in the agreement for sale is 31-12-2021 and the same was subject to provisions of clause 8 of the said agreement which provides for a reasonable extension on occurrence of mitigating events.
• The Covid 19 pandemic was a force majeure event and therefore covered under clause 8 of the agreement for sale. 

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

• the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 being the promoters of this project registered with the MahaRERA are liable to perform their part as stipulated in the registered agreement for sale dated 25-01-2019 signed with the complainant herein.
• With regards to respondent taking the plea on the issue of jurisdiction as per clause 16.1 of the said agreement for sale wheras the complainant has agreed for arbitration in case of any dispute arising in respect of the said agreement for sale.MahaRERA is of the view that the same is raised at a belated stage by filing its reply on record of MahaRERA,
• Further, there are no explicit provisions under RERA about the arbitration clause. Hence,the same stands rejected.
• As far as the issue raised by the complainant about GST input credit not being provided to him, the MahaRERA is of the prima facie view that the same does not fall within the purview of the MahaRERA under the provisions of the RERA. 
• However, it is for the concerned competent forum to deal with such issues. Hence, the complainant need to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of the said grievances about the GST. 
• The MahaRERA is not going to deal with the said issue for want of jurisdiction.
• the MahaRERA is of the view that the delay cited by the respondent such as delay in obtaining CFO NOC due to change in fire norms and the delay in obtaining NOC from MPCB do not fall within the force majeure factors mentioned in the draft model agreement for sale prescribed under the RERA and the relevant rules made thereunder.

Court’s Order:-

• The respondent promoter is directed to pay interest for the delayed possession to the complainants from 01-01-2023 ( as per agreements for sale i.e. 31-12-2021 + 1 year grace period due to Covid-19 Pandemic i.e. 31-12-2022) for every month till the actual date of possession of the said flat to the complainant or till the date of offer of possession with OC if any obtained by the respondent promoter. 
• to ensure that the said project is not jeopardized due to the outflow of finances it is directed that the amounts of interest shall be paid by the respondent promoter to the said complainants after obtaining the full occupancy certificate.

MAHAREAT -When the Allottees asked the promoters to enter into an agreement for sale but the Promoters did not reply and did not enter into an agreement for sale thereupon Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply and also when the project is ongoing Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will be applied being continuing breach of contract.

When the Allottees asked the promoters to enter into an agreement for sale but the Promoters did not reply and did not enter into an agreement for sale thereupon Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply and also when the project is ongoing  Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will be applied being continuing breach of contract

M/s, Reddy Builders & Developers & ors V/s Hari Shankar Kankani & ors.

Appeal No, AT00600000053249/2021 in Complaint No. CC006000000195966 BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

Fact of the main Complaint CC006000000195966:-

• Somewhere in the year 2005, The Respondents Allottees had booked a 3BHK flat under a pre-launched scheme in the project "Oregon" in Goregaon ,Mumbai undertaken by Appellants for a total consideration of Rs.38,99,740/-
• The Respondents Allottees paid an amount of Rs.6,90,000/- as booking amount which is more than 10% of the total consideration.
• The Appellant Company Reddy Builders issued allotment letter-cum-receipts to Allottees.
• The Allottees were continuously insisting the Promoters to execute the agreement for sale. Despite continuous follow-up of Allottees the Promoters conveniently avoided to execute the agreement for sale.
• The Appellant Company Reddy Builders agreed to handover the possession of the said flat to Allottees by 2012.
• However Till 2009, the Construction was not commenced due to some issue with slum dwellers.
• somewhere in the year 2021 ,being dissatisfied with the conduct of the Promoters, the Allottees filed Complaint No.CC006000000195966 and sought relief under Section 13 of the RERA Act,2016.
• The Appellant Company Reddy Builders appeared in the Complaint and remonstrated the Complaint by filing written submissions contending therein that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed primarily on following grounds viz; 
• (i) there ls no cause of action 
• (ii) the alleged transaction took place prior to RERA coming into force 
• (iii) the Complaint is not maintainable for want of proper pleadings 
• (iv) the Allottees are guilty of delay and latches 
• (v) the Complaint is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation.
• On 19/04/2021 After hearing the parties learned Authority disposed of the Complaint by directing the parties as under:
• a. If the Complainants are willing to seek refund of their money, the Respondent No.1 is directed to refund the entire money paid by the Complainants along with interest as prescribed under RERA and relevant rules made thereunder.
• b. If the Complainants are willing to be in the project the Respondent is directed to allot the flat having equivalent area as booked by the Complainants. An agreement for sale may be executed in accordance with the provisions of RERA and the relevant rules."
• Being aggrieved by the Order of  MahaRERA  the Appellants, who are Promoters, have preferred the captioned Appeal

The Authority Framed the following Question(s) for consideration:-

            Whether the Complaint is barred by the law of limitation?

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

• It is not in dispute that after 2006 there was no correspondence between the parties till 2019.
• By the letters in 2019 & 2020 the Allottees asked the Promoters to enter into an agreement for sale.
• It is not in dispute that the Promoters have not replied the said letters.
• Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 speaks about the period of limitation for seeking specific performance of contract.
• There is limitation of three years for seeking relief of specific performance of contract.
• The period of limitation begins to run when the date fixed for performance, or, if no such date is fixed it begins when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused.
• In the instant case, there is no date fixed for performance of contract,
• As indicated above, by the letters, the Allottees have asked the promoters to enter into an agreement for sale. Promoters did not reply the said letters nor entered into an agreement for sale, It means the Allottees have noticed that performance of contract is refused by the promoters.
• it is not in dispute that the Promoters have commenced construction of the subject project somewhere in 2015-2016.
• Since it was an ongoing project, the Promoters have registered the project with MahaRERA and declared the date of completion of project as 31.07.2027,It means there is continuous cause of action.
• Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for the computation of limitation in the case of continuing breach of contract or tort. It provides that in case of a continuing breach of contract, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the breach continues.
• it relied on  Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Limited. Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Private Limited  Civil Appeal No 4000 of 2019 before the Supreme Court of India.

Court’s Order:-

Complaint is not barred by the law of limitation

BOMBAY HIGH COURT Allowed the refund of Stamp Duty, even when the Agreement for Sale was not cancelled within the five years of the execution giving the rational that an act of Court shall prejudice no man and the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform.

Satish Buba Shetty v/s Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps and Others

WRIT PETITION NO.9657 OF 2022

Decided on JANUARY 11, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 

Fact of the Case:- 

1. On 10/11/2014 the Petitioner Purchased a flat in a building known as “ERA” of the M/s. Vijaykamal Properties Private Limited (the Developer.)
2. The Total Cost of Flat was Rs. 95 lakhs and the Petitioner paid 25% of it to the developer
3. On 19/11/2014 The Agreement to sale was duly registered with the Registrar of Assurances.
4. The stamp duty of Rs. 4,76,000/- was paid to the Exchequer.
5. The Developer had agreed to deliver possession of the flat by 30/06/2017. 

Time line of the Matter :-

1. On the Default of Developer in providing the Possession, the Petitioner filed the case in MahaRERA. 
2. On Date 26/12/2017 MahaRERA directed the the Developer to refund the amount and execute a Deed of Cancellation.
3. On the Non Compliance of the MahaRERA Order the petitioner filed an Execution Application u/s 63 of RERA Act, 2016. 
4. On Date 13/03/2018 MahaRERA imposed the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- per day on the Developer till the compliance of the order.
5. The Developer preferred an appeal before MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal (MREAT).
6. On 21/08/2018 the MREAT stayed the MahaRERA's order but subject to the Submission of 50% of the due amount plus interest, by the developer. 
7. The Developer defaulted on the Order of MREAT.
8. On Date 16/10/2018 MREAT dismissed the Developer's Appeal for want of compliance of order.
9. The petitioner filed for execution before the MREAT.
10. The Developer and the petitioner arrived at a settlement and Developer refunded the full amount by 22/02/2021.
11. On 09/03/2021 the Deed of Cancellation was executed by the petitioner.
12. On 19/03/2021 the Execution Application  was disposed off by the MREAT.
13.  On 31/03/2021 the petitioner applied to Collector of Stamps, Borivali for refund of Rs. 4,76,000/- paid as stamp duty. 
14. On 27/04/2021 the Collector of Stamps, Borivali declined to refund the stamp duty u/s 48(1) of the Stamp Act, 1958 holding that as Agreement for Sale was not cancelled within the five years of the execution.
15. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. 
16. On 09/02/2022, in Appeal No. 111 of 2021 the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority also dismissed the petitioner's appeal u/s 53(1A) Stamp Act, 1958 holding that  the registered instrument was cancelled beyond five years of its execution.  
17. This petition filed this writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order.

Submissions by Appellant:-

1. The impossibility of performance of the condition within the period stipulated by the proviso was not properly appreciated by the authorities under the Stamp Act, 1958. 
2. A genuine claim of a bonafide Senior Citizen home buyer, was unjustifiably rejected by the authorities.

Submissions by Respondent:-

1. The petitioner had obtained the entire benefit under the Agreement for Sale.
2. The petitioner had never sought the cancellation of the agreement for sale within the period prescribed under the proviso to section 48(1) of the Stamp Act, 1958.
3. The Stamp Act, 1958 being a fiscal statute is required to be construed strictly.

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

1. The Controversy at hand, is governed by the proviso to sub section (1) of section 48
2. The proviso to sub section (1) of section 48 thus envisages two time limits.
•  One, the registered Agreement for Sale must have been cancelled by another registered instrument within a period of five years of the execution of the Agreement for Sale.
• Two, the application for relief under section 47 be made within a period of six months from the date of registration of the Cancellation Deed.
3. In the case at hand, the authorities under the Act of 1958 have declined to grant the relief on the premise that there was non fulfilment of the first condition of cancellation of the Agreement for Sale within five years of its execution.
4. The submission of the petitioner  that there was, in a sense, an enforced impossibility of fulfillment of said stipulation cannot be said to be unworthy of consideration.
5. there was no indolence or other blameworthy conduct attributable to the petitioner.
6. The question that wrenches to the fore is, in such a situation, can a party who does all that which is in its control, be saddled with the consequence of non-compliance of a statutory prescription ?
7.  In my considered view, the answer has to be in the negative. 
8. The law recognizes impossibility of performance as a ground to relieve a person from forfeiture and penalty.
9. In the case of Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v/s. Kumar and Others (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 46 the Supreme court recognized two maxims,
• “actus curiae neminem gravabit”; an act of Court shall prejudice no man. and 
• “lex non cogit ad impossibilia”; the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform.
10. In the facts of the case, the first of aforesaid maxims may have an application in the context of the time which was consumed in prosecuting the remedies before the authorities under RERA. The petitioner could have compelled the Developer to execute the Deed of Cancellation if the transaction was not to materialize, only by invoking the remedies under the law. The time spent in pursuing legitimate remedies, in the absence of any bad faith or want of due diligence, can not be arrayed against the petitioner
11. Secondly, the petitioner could not have lodged a claim for refund of the stamp duty without there being a registered instrument to cancel the registered Agreement to Sale as Cancellation of earlier registered Agreement to Sale by another registered instrument is a prerequisite for the applicability of the proviso to sub section (1) of section 48.
12. Rajeev Nohwar vs. Chief Controlling Revenue, Authority Maharashtra State, Pune and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 863. was a case for refund of stamp duty which was purchased but no Agreement to Sale was executed. The Supreme Court found that the provisions of section 47 had no application to the facts of the said case. Yet, the Supreme Court allowed the application for claim for refund observing, inter alia, that a rejection of the application for refund would violate equity, justice and fairness where the applicant is made to suffer the brunt of judicial delay

Court’s Order:-

The petition stands allowed.

The order dated 9th February, 2022 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and the order dated 27th April, 2021 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Borivali are quashed and set aside.

The claim for relief under section 47 of the Stamp Act, 1958 stands allowed.

TSRERA :- The Allottee has an obligation to adhere to the payment schedule as agreed in its Agreement of Sale as per Section 19(6) and non procurement of the Home loan amount cannot put the Builder under financial distress.

The Allottee has an obligation to adhere to the payment schedule as agreed in its Agreement of Sale as per Section 19(6) and non procurement of the  Home loan amount cannot put the  Builder under financial distress. 

Sri Umesh Choudhary Vs/ M/s Alpine Infratech 

COMPLAINT NO.519 OF 2023 decided on 12th Day of March, 2024 

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Facts :-

1. The Complainant booked a flat in August 2021 in the project of the Respondent Builder.
2. Application Form/Terms and Conditions of Allotment was signed by him.
3. The Agreement of Sale was executed in the month of January 2022.
4. Complainant paid 20% of the cost and the balance 80% amount was to be arranged in form of Home loan.
5. The Project was approved from many nationalized bank but as the Complainant was a Central Government employee so he wanted the Home Loan in the form of House Building Allowance (HBA) from his concerned department. 
6. That vide e-mail dated 15.04.2022, the Complainant sought for several documents ( a list of 19 documents) from the Respondent Builder to avail HBA loan.
7. The complete documents were finally given by the builder on 20.02.2023.
8.  The Builder directed the Complainant to pay the Final due amount by 28.03.2023 else base price will be increased by Rs.200 per sft.
9. The Complainant offered an interim payment of Rs.5,00,000/-  by first week of May 2023 and the full payment by July 2023.
10. In May 2023, the Complainant requested the builder to accept the due amount of Rs.25,00,000/-
11. The Builder refused to accept the amount and stated that they will only accept if the Complainant agreed to make the payment with the revised base rate by Rs. 1000 per sft an increase of  Rs.11,20,000 in total price. 

Complainants Contentions :-

1. The delay in making payment occurred due to non-handing over of documents in time. hence, management is responsible for such delays.
2.  The revised increased rate is not acceptable as the delay in making payment did not occur on default of the Complainant. 
3. Prayed to take needful action against the Respondent Builder as per the applicable rules and regulations and to get the flat at the original agreed rate.

Respondent Builder's Contentions :-

1. The Complainant in spite of availing discount did not pay the agreed amount on time.
2. The Complainant initially agreed orally to take loan from various nationalized banks but later in the month of July 2022, started requesting various documents from the Respondent Company
3. The Complainant made one or the other request for the documents and that too after a lapse of one year and also which were beyond the purview of the Respondent Company and evaded the payments due to the Respondent Company. 
4. The Respondent Company sent several mails requesting the Complainant to visit the office of the Respondent Company to sort the issue. 
5. The Complainant failed to perform his part of contractual obligation and did not make the payment as per schedule, that's why the Company is justified in cancelling the booking 

Observations of the Authority :-

1. In Clause 1.3 of the BBA, the Complainant agreed to make payment as per payment plan set out in Schedule C (Payment Plan).
2. As per the Payment Schedule annexed to the said Agreement of Sale, the Complainant categorically agreed to payment of the schedule therein. which is not disputed by either party 
3. in the annexure to the said Payment Schedule, Point No.4 stipulates that prices are subject to change without prior notice upon non confirmation of sale.  
4.  the Complainant is bound by the same and failure of the Complainant in complying with the payment schedule is derogation of his duty under Section 19(6) of the Act.
5. the delay in procuring the documents cannot be attributed to the Respondent Builder as the said documents may not readily available with him and he may not be in a position to produce documents such as 
1. government pleader's certificate, 
2. estimates, 
3. permission under Conduct Rules for purchase of site and for construction of the house,
4.  Notice under Section 26(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, etc
6. Clause 9.3 (ii) of the undated Agreement of Sale executed between the parties clearly stipulates In case of Default by Allottee under the condition listed above continues for a period beyond 2 (two) consecutive months after notice from the Promoter in this regard, the Promoter may cancel the allotment of the [Apartment/Plot] in favor of the Allottee and refund the money paid to him by the allottee by deducting the booking amount and the interest liabilities and this Agreement shall thereupon stand terminated

Order of Authority:-

1. The Complainant is directed to pay the remaining amounts which is pending as on date as per the payment schedule agreed upon by both the parties within 60 (sixty) days, along with interest of 10.65%.
2. In the event the Complainant fails to complete such payment, the Respondent is to initiate measures in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules thereunder.

Chattisgarh RERA Notification on Joint Venture Agreement between Land Owners and Developers

 Joint Venture Agreement between Land Owners and Developers

 Chattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) vide circular No./94 /RERA/2023/1956 dated 01/12/2023 directs following clauses to be mandatorily added in the joint venture agreement between the land owners and builders:

1. The land owners and the builders shall be jointly & severally liable to fulfill all obligations under RERA;
2. The Agreement to Sale with the allottee should be signed by both.