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.

Plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance where the plaintiff has done substantial acts in consequence of a contract/agreement to sell

 In Jinesh Kumar Jain v. Iris Paintal, MANU/DE/3387/2012, the DELHI HIGH Court held that 

the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance where the plaintiff has done substantial acts in consequence of a contract/agreement to sell. Substantial acts obviously would mean and include payment of substantial amounts of money. The plaintiff may have paid 50% or more of the consideration or having paid a lesser consideration he could be in possession pursuant to the agreement to sell or otherwise is in the possession of the subject property or other substantial acts have been performed by the plaintiff, and acts which can be said to be substantial acts under Section 20(3) of Specific Relief Act. However, where the acts are not substantial i.e. merely 5% or 10% etc. of the consideration is paid i.e. less than substantial consideration is paid, (and for which a rough benchmark can be taken as 50% of the consideration), and/or plaintiff is not in possession of the subject land, the plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance.

A person having agreement to sell in his favor does not get any right in the property except the right to litigation on this basis

 In the Matter of Mohinder Kaur Vs. Sudarshan Krishnamurthy First Appeal (OS) No.197 of 1991 decided on 26.03.1992 Before DELHI HIGH COURT

it was held that “It is true, that under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act a person having agreement to sell in his favor does not get any right in the property except the right to litigation on this basis.”

MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal: There can be no forfeiture on withdrawal before sale agreement

 The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, on March 17, 2021 set aside the order dated October 3, 2019 (“impugned order”) passed in Complaint No. CC006000000089770 in the matter of Mr. Dinesh R. Humane and Mrs. Ranjana D. Humane (“Appellants/Allottees”) v. Piramal Estate Private Limited (“Respondent/Promoter”) by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“MahaRERA”). The order dated March 17, 2021 directed the Promoter to refund the total amount paid by Allottees on the cancellation of flat reservation.

Facts of the Case:

The Allottees agreed to purchase, and the Promoter agreed to sell Flat No. 807 in the project namely Vaikunth Cluster- 2 at Thane. The Allottees submitted form of ‘request for reservation’ of Flat on 29th January 2019 and paid an amount of Rs. 1,12,393/- as booking amount to the Promoter. The Allottees  also paid Rs. 4,49,574/- on March 1, 2019 towards price of the Flat to Promoter. On account of medical emergency in the family of Allottees, they decided to cancel the flat booking. Accordingly, they sent an   e-mail to the Promoter requesting to cancel the flat booking and to refund the total amount of Rs.5,61,967/-. The Promoter replied vide e-mail dated May 20, 2019 that the amount paid by Allottees is forfeited on account of cancellation. The Allottees filed a Complaint before MahaRERA for recovery of amount of Rs. 5,61,967/- from the Promoter. The impugned order was passed by MahaRERA whereby the Promoter/ Respondent was directed to refund the booking amount in accordance with the booking form. The Allottees filed an appeal before MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal challenging the order passed by MahaRERA.

Issues:

Whether the MahaRERA order directing the Promoter to refund the booking amount to Allottees in accordance with booking form signed by both the parties is correct?

Analysis:

The MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal held that:

Form of ‘request for reservation’ is signed by Allottees only and not by the Promoter. The terms and conditions recited in Annexure “A” thereto are to be followed and observed by Allottees only. As per the impugned order, amount is to be refunded in accordance with the booking form signed by both the parties. Annexure “A” is not styled as booking form and there is no document having nomenclature as "booking form” which is signed by Allottees or by both the parties. Thus, the impugned order is passed based on such document which does not exist on record.

The only document signed by the Allottees is the printed form styled as ‘request for reservation’, which consists of 33 different terms and conditions to be observed by Allottees only. Clause 17 providing forfeiture of 10% amount of the total price of flat or the amount paid till the date, whichever is lesser, in case of withdrawal by Allottees is ex-facie unreasonable, unfair and inequitable. Existence of such a condition in the printed form of ‘request for reservation’ is against the object and purpose of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) and the same being against statute of RERA is not binding on the parties and such unreasonable and unfair transaction cannot be enforced.

The Supreme Court in the case of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure v. Govindan Raghavan, [Appeal No. 12238 of 2018, decided on April 2, 2019] held that the court will not enforce an unreasonable, unfair contract or an unreasonable and unfair clause in a contract where contracting parties are not equal in bargaining power and where a man has no choice or rather a meaningful choice but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form as a part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rule may be.

The agreement for sale was not executed between the parties. Parties never reached to the stage of executing agreement for sale. There was no attempt to execute the agreement on the part of either the Promoter or Allottees. The refund of amount paid to promoter can be demanded as per Section 18 of RERA on the ground that promoter fails to give possession on agreed date or fails to complete the project as per terms and conditions of agreement for sale. However, in this peculiar matter though the claim of refund is not governed by any specific provision of RERA, it cannot be ignored that the object of RERA is to protect the interest of the consumer.

Regulation 39 of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General Regulation), 2017 and Regulation 25 of Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Regulation, 2019 are in respect of the inherent powers of the regulatory authority and the appellate tribunal to pass such orders which are necessary to meet the ends of justice.

The MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal, thus, set aside the impugned order and directed the Promoter to refund the full amount paid by Allottees.

Long term leases would amount to sale and hence lessees will also fall within the definition of "allottee”

 In the Matter of Manju Mahendra Joshi Vs. Lavasa Corporation ltd. Complaint no. AT006000000000096, decided on 17.04.2018 beforeThe Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

In the Matter of Manju Mahendra Joshi Vs. Lavasa Corporation ltd. Complaint no. AT006000000000096, decided on 17.04.2018 beforeThe Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ruled that “ Long term leases would amount to sale and hence lessees will also fall within the definition of allottee”

This Order was further upheld by the Order of Bombay high Court in Lavasa Corporation Limited v. Manju Narendra Joshi (C.A. No. 791 of 2018) decided on 07.08.2018.

On behalf of the lessor it was contended that since the impugned agreement was an 'agreement of lease' and not an ‘agreement for sale’, the provisions of RERA would not be applicable.

The definition of ‘promoter’ under section 2(zk) of RERA was relied upon by the lessor, as it contemplates a person, who constructs or caused to be constructed an apartment ‘for the purpose of selling’.

Reliance was also placed on the definition of 'allottee', under Section 2(d) of RERA, which specifically provides that allottee does not include a person to whom plot, apartment or building is ‘given on rent’.

Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Palshikar (HUF) v. CIT, M.P., Nagpur and Bhandara, 1988 (172) ITR 311, wherein it was held that lease for a period of 99 (ninety nine) years would amount to transfer of capital assets. A judgment of the Madras High Court was also relied upon, which held that a lease for a period of 99 (ninety nine) years is an alienation as a sale, and mere use of the word 'lease' or the fact that a long term is fixed would not by itself make the document in lease.

The intention of RERA, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 1 SCC 335 was also looked at, which was to protect the interest of consumers who have invested substantial amounts in real estate projects. If they are excluded from the definition of 'Allottee' and thereby from the protection given under the Act, by giving restrictive meaning to the term 'Allottee', the very object of RERA would stand frustrated.

Supreme Court - Agreement to Sell Land, but Convyeyance deed was executed after some time - what should be market value of land for the purpose of conveyance deed?

 In the matter of M/s. Residents Welfare Association, Noida V/s State Of U.P. & Ors Complaint no. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4367 OF 2000  decided on  15.04.2009 before Supreme Court of India

Agreement to Sell Land, but Conveyance deed was executed after some time - what should be market value of land for the purpose of conveyance deed?

1. When delay is caused by Purchaser intentionally, the market value should be determined on the date when the deed is executed and not when an agreement to sale the property or lease the property had been registered.

1. Where however the delay is caused by seller the market value should be determined on the date when the agreement to lease the property was entered.

1. Further observed that there cannot be a straitjacket formula devised for determining the same.

x

Supreme Court - All agreements of sale are bilateral contracts as promises are made by both - the vendor agreeing to sell and the purchaser agreeing to purchase. agreement of sale signed by the vendor alone and delivered and accepted by the purchaser is a valid contract, however, no practice of the purchaser alone signing an agreement of sale.

 In the Matter of  Alka Bose vs Parmatma Devi & Ors Complaint no. CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6197 OF 2000  decided on 17.12.2008 before Supreme Court of India

The defendant submitted that a contract for sale, like any other contract, is bilateral in nature under which both vendor and the purchaser have rights and obligations. It is submitted that an agreement for sale being a contract for sale, creating a right in the purchaser to obtain a deed of conveyance in terms of the agreement under which, the vendor agrees to convey to the purchaser, and the purchaser agrees to purchase, the subject-matter of the agreement for an agreed consideration, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement, it is bilateral. It is therefore contended that an agreement of sale is neither complete nor enforceable unless it is signed by both parties.

The apex court observed that

In India, an agreement of sale signed by the vendor alone and delivered to the purchaser, and accepted by the purchaser, has always been considered to be a valid contract. In the event of breach by the vendor, it can be specifically enforced by the purchaser. There is, however, no practice of the purchaser alone signing an agreement of sale.

An agreement of sale comes into existence when the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser agrees to purchase,for an agreed consideration on agreed terms.

• It can be oral.

• It can be by exchange of communications which may or may not be signed.

• It may be by a single document signed by both parties.

• It can also be by a document in two parts, each party signing one copy and then exchanging the signed copy as a consequence of which the purchaser has the copy signed by the vendor and a vendor has a copy signed by the purchaser.

• Or it can be by the vendor executing the document and delivering it to the purchaser who accepts it.

• Section 10 of the Act provides all agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent by the parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not expressly declared to be void under the provisions of the Contract Act.