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.

Assignment or transfer of development rights does not automatically extinguish the allottee's statutory rights.

 

Mayuresh Vijay Kulkarni v. Shree Raghvanshi Developer & Ors.

Forum: MahaRERA

Facts:
The complainant purchased a residential flat in a redevelopment project and made substantial payments, although no registered Agreement for Sale was executed. The project was significantly delayed and subsequently lapsed. Development rights were later assigned to a new developer through a tripartite arrangement.

Issue:
Whether the successor developer becomes responsible for the liabilities of the earlier promoter, particularly delayed-possession interest.

Held:
MahaRERA held that the new developer had stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile promoter and was liable to pay interest under Section 18 until actual handover with the OC. The Society was not held liable.

Ratio:
Assignment or transfer of development rights does not automatically extinguish the allottee's statutory rights. Where the successor developer assumes the development rights and obligations, it can also assume the corresponding liabilities toward existing allottees.

Practical Impact:
Successor developers undertaking stalled redevelopment projects should conduct a comprehensive liability assessment before accepting development rights. Existing allottees may continue to assert Section 18 claims notwithstanding changes in the development entity.

Relevant RERA Sections:
Section 11 — promoter obligations; Section 18 — delayed possession; Section 15 — obligations relating to transfer/assignment of majority rights and liabilities, where applicable.

RERA authorities cannot assume the jurisdiction of a civil court to adjudicate proprietary or possessory disputes.

 

Raajyam Realty LLP v. Radhika Ganatra & Anr.

Forum: MahaRERA

Facts:
The promoter complained that the allottees had occupied the property without permission and had failed to pay the balance consideration under a registered sale agreement. The respondents challenged the complaint, pointing out that the promoter did not possess a full and valid OC and had not complied with contractual requirements concerning possession.

Issue:
Whether MahaRERA could grant relief concerning recovery of possession or eviction where the dispute involved proprietary and possessory rights.

Held:
MahaRERA dismissed the complaint. It found that the OC relied upon by the promoter was conditional and subject to outstanding statutory compliances. It further held that eviction and recovery of possession fall outside RERA jurisdiction.

Ratio:
RERA authorities cannot assume the jurisdiction of a civil court to adjudicate proprietary or possessory disputes. A conditional OC may also be insufficient to establish that the promoter has completed its obligations for lawful possession.

Practical Impact:
Promoters should not assume that an RERA complaint can be used as an eviction mechanism. Conversely, allottees facing possession disputes involving title or proprietary rights may need to approach the civil court.

Relevant RERA Sections:
Section 2(zf) — Occupancy Certificate; Section 11 — promoter obligations; Section 17 — transfer of title; Section 79 — bar of civil-court jurisdiction, subject to the limits recognised by law.