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.

Appellants, having accepted a part of benefit, are not permitted to approbate and reprobate also they can not be permitted to resile from their earlier stand. Therefore, the Appellant has to be estopped from claiming again.

 In the Matter of S.Dominic Savio and Anr. vs. Phoenix Serene Spaces Pvt. Ltd. Complaint no.Appeal No. 64 of 2019  decided on 28.02.2020 before Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

The Appellant entered into an agreement with the Respondent for a flat in the project of the Respondent. The apartment was to be completed by 31.12.2015 with a grace period of six months. However, the unit was not delivered on time and the Respondent agreed to cancel the allotment on 05.05.2018, refunding the principal amount in three installments. In December 2018, the Appellants approached Respondents for refund of interest, for which the Respondent refused. Being aggrieved, complaint was filed before Adjudicating Officer for interest and compensation. The said complaint was dismissed by the Adjudicating Officer. In the present Appeal, it is contented by the Appellants that Respondent visited their offices and homes to deliberate on the refund process and due to the mental pressure and undue influence exerted by the Respondents, they were forced to accept foregoing interest and compensation and agreed for refund of principal only to free themselves from the mental agony. The Tribunal after going through the communication between the Appellant and the Respondent over a period of time held that there was no undue influence or undress. The said communication clearly reflected that Appellants voluntarily asked the Respondents to cancel the allotment, refund the money without any deduction, promising to forego their claim of interest and compensation. Further, it was held that the action of the Appellants was an afterthought, since they had waived their right of interest and compensation due to their agreement with the Respondent. The Appellants in this case, having accepted a part of benefit could not to be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand. Therefore, the Appellant was estopped from claiming again. 

Provisions of Section 12 are retroactive in nature,allottees are entitled to protection for breaches and failure of the developer notwithstanding that the transactions between the developer and the allottees consummated before the Act came into force

 In the Matter of Rohit Chawla and Ors. vs. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. complaint no.AT006000000011016  decided on 31.12.2019 before Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

In the instant case, 

• the developer had published the project and gave assurances regarding details of the amenities and flats and basis such representations, the allottees booked flats in the project in 2012-2013. 

• The developer further represented to the allottees that it would handover the possession of the flat by 2017. However, the developer failed to handover the possession and also failed to provide amenities as were assured to the allottees. 

• Accordingly, the allottees filed a complaint before MahaRERA claiming that they had suffered a loss on account of incorrect and false statements made by the developer in relation to the project. Further, the allottees also sought refunds of the amounts paid by them along with interest thereon.

• MahaRERA held that Section 12 of the Act (which deals with obligations of the developer regarding veracity of the advertisement or prospectus) was not retrospective and was not applicable to the instant case since the allottees had booked flats in the year 2012-2013 and the Act came into force in the year 2017. 

• Further, MahaRERA had rejected the plea of the allottees to withdraw from the project since it would jeopardise the completion of the project. 

• The MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal overruled the order passed by MahaRERA and held that provisions of Section 12 (which deals with obligations of the developer regarding veracity of the advertisement or prospectus) are retroactive in nature and the allottees are entitled to protection for breaches and failure of the developer notwithstanding that the transactions between the developer and the allottees consummated before the Act came into force.

•  Further, MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal also held that the allottees are entitled to withdraw from the project and the developer was under an obligation to refund the amounts paid by the allottees along with interest thereon.

x