Not every charge connected with parking is unlawful; its legal character must be examined against the statutory definition.

 

KZK Developers v. Smt. Haripriya Patel & Anr.

Forum: OREAT

Facts:
The allottee paid the full consideration for a flat for which possession was scheduled in July 2020. Possession was delivered only in March 2023. The promoter relied on COVID-19, regulatory issues and non-issuance of OC as explanations for delay and disputed the refund of parking charges.

Issue:
Whether the promoter remained liable for delayed-possession interest despite force-majeure/regulatory circumstances and whether parking charges were refundable.

Held:
OREAT upheld interest liability and held that possession without an OC could not be treated as valid possession. However, it set aside the refund of parking charges because the space qualified as a “garage” under the RERA framework.

Ratio:
The allottee's right to delayed-possession interest is treated as an important statutory protection. At the same time, not every charge connected with parking is unlawful; its legal character must be examined against the statutory definition.

Practical Impact:
Promoters should not treat physical handover without the required OC as complete performance. Buyers challenging parking charges should establish the legal nature of the space.

Relevant RERA Sections:
Section 18 — delayed possession; Section 2(y) — garage; Section 11 — promoter obligations.

After invoking Section 13(4) SARFAESI measures, the bank became subject to the RERA framework

 

 Punjab National Bank v. Asish Kumar Pradhan & Anr.

Forum: OREAT

Facts:
Homebuyers had booked units and paid substantial amounts. The promoter defaulted on a bank loan secured by mortgage of the project land. The bank initiated auction proceedings under SARFAESI, while ORERA had restrained the auction in order to protect the homebuyers.

Issue:
Whether the bank's security rights could override the prior contractual rights of homebuyers and whether RERA could protect allottees against SARFAESI enforcement.

Held:
OREAT upheld protection of the homebuyers. It held that after invoking Section 13(4) SARFAESI measures, the bank became subject to the RERA framework in the circumstances of the case. The prior AFSs created enforceable rights in favour of the homebuyers.

Ratio:
Where purchasers have acquired enforceable rights in specific units before enforcement of security, the secured creditor's rights cannot necessarily be exercised in a manner that defeats those existing allottee rights.

Practical Impact:
Banks financing real-estate projects should undertake due diligence concerning existing allotments and agreements. Homebuyers should establish the chronology of allotment, payment and mortgage.

Relevant RERA Sections:
Section 11 — promoter obligations; Section 18 — allottee remedies; Section 17 — title-related rights; Section 79 — jurisdiction.
The decision also concerns the interaction between RERA and Section 13(4) of SARFAESI.