Search This Blog
Translate the Site.
Tuesday, 26 December 2023
Sunday, 16 May 2021
Authority is competent only to deal with violations or contraventions of the Act.,Authority is not the appropriate forum for settlement of disputes between the land owner and the promoter or between partners in business
In the Matter of Raghunath Prasad Jain Vs Arihant Dream Infra Projects Ltd. Complaint no.RAJ-RERA-C-2017-2105 decided on 12.06.2019 before Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
The Rajasthan Real Estate Authority presided by Shri Nihal Chand Goel and Shri Rakesh Jain held that the promoter has no obligation towards the land owner or his partners in business.
All the obligations of the promoter enumerated under the Act are either towards the allottees or towards the Authority, but there is no obligation the promoter has towards the land owner or his partners in business. And, the Authority is competent only to deal with violations or contraventions of the Act.
Thus, the Authority is not the appropriate forum for settlement of disputes between the land owner and the promoter or between partners in business;and this complaint of the land owner against the promoter is not maintainable under the Act.
In this case, the agreement for sale executed between the allottees and the non-complainant, it was promised to deliver the possession of the project by October, 2016. Promoters challenged the maintainability of the complainant as it has been wrongly invoked under RERA as the complainant is not an allottee, but the land owner and business partner, who has been duly shown as a co-promoter in the application for registration filed before the Authority, under his consent.
The Act provides for remedial action for the allottees or customers being buyers of the developed property; and the disputes inter-se between the developer and the owner of land are not under the ambit and jurisdiction of RERA.
x
Tuesday, 13 April 2021
Land Owners can’t be Punished in Joint Ventures – Tamil Nadu RERA
In a complaint filed by Shankari Sundararaman (“Complainant”) against Sree Vardhana Builders Private Limited (“Company”), 265 of 2020 its directors and landowners of the Project named ‘Vardhana Constellation’ in Coimbatore, for claiming refund of amounts paid towards the purchase of the flat under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“Act”), the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Chennai (“TNRERA”) stated that since directors are actively involved in the affairs of the Company and have received money and corresponded with the Complainant, they would be liable for violations under Section 69 the Act which deals with offences by companies and people responsible for the conduct/business of the company.
However, with respect to landowners of the project site (being the other respondents), TNRERA stated that the landowners had just entered into joint venture agreements and had executed general power of attorney with the Company. The sale deeds for the undivided share of land was only executed by the Company and not the landowners.
Further, it was stated that it was the Company that had launched the project and had entered into various agreements with the Complainant for construction and delivery of the constructed apartment on receiving consideration.
Henceforth, the landowners would not come under the definition of “promoter” and only the Company would fall under the definition of “promoter” to be made liable for contravention under Section 31 read with Section 71 of the Act