The complaints under Section 12 were thus held to be required to be filed only before the Adjudicating Officer, being the authority empowered to grant compensation under the Act

 In the Matter of Sandeep Mann vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab and Anr. Complaint no. Appeal No. 53 of 2018 decided on 27.02.2019 before  Punjab Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

The issue that arose in the batch matter of fifteen appeals was as to the forum (as between the Real Estate Regulatory Authority constituted under Section 20, and the Adjudicating Officer appointed under Section 71) before which a person aggrieved by violations and contraventions enumerated in Section 11(5), 12, 14(3), 18(1), 18(2), 18(3), 19(4) and 19(7) of the RERA, 2016 or the agreement for sale, praying for reliefs of refund, return of investment including compensation, setting aside of order of cancellation of allotment, compensation, compensation and interest, compensation or interest and interest as a separate relief may file a complaint.The question arose on account of two circulars issued by the Authority declaring that complaints for compensation shall be filed before and adjudged by the Adjudicating Officer whereas all other complaints shall be filed before and adjudicated by the Authority. Following these circulars, one set of orders came to be passed by the Adjudicating Officer, whereby the complaints claiming relief of refund, interest and compensation came to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Another set of orders were those which the Authority passed, rejecting the complaints which alleged

violations and contraventions of the Act, while granting liberty to approach the Adjudicating Officer. All these orders were subject matter of the appeal decided by the Appellate Tribunal.

The Appellate Tribunal after considering the provisions of the Act came to the conclusion that:

(i) In case of Section 11(5), no difficulty arose, in view of the fact that the said provision specifically mentioned the Authority as the forum, before which a complaint could be filed by a complainant aggrieved by cancellation of allotment by the promoter;

 

(ii) Section 12 provides for compensation on account of false advertisement, and also for refund of investment along with interest, in case of a complainant who desires to withdraw from the project on account of false advertisement. The nature of relief being different, the circulars issued by the Authority provided for adjudication of the complaint based on the same cause of action (viz., false advertisement) by two different authorities (viz., the Adjudicating Officer for compensation and the Authority for refund of investment). The Appellate Tribunal held this mechanism to be flawed, inter alia, on account of the fact that it raised the possibility of differing orders being passed by the two authorities. Further, the cause of action being the same, the fact that the complainant had a choice of relying would not change the nature of the proceedings. The basis of the proceedings was adjudication of the proof of default. The complaints under Section 12 were thus held to be required to be filed only before the Adjudicating Officer, being the authority empowered to grant compensation under the Act;

(iii) Section 14(3), like Section 11(3), was held not to pose any problem on account of the fact that the use of the words ‘shall be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided under this Act’ could only mean that the appropriate forum was the Adjudicating Officer, viz., the authority empowered to award compensation under the Act;

(iv) Section 18(1), the cause of action for which is the inability of the promoter to give possession due to any of the reasons specified therein, provides an option to the buyer to withdraw from the project and seek return of investment with interest including compensation in the manner prescribed in the Act, thereby meaning that the Adjudicating Officer shall have power to adjudicate the complaint. In a case covered by the proviso, however, viz., one where return of investment is not sought and the allottee is entitled to interest till possession, the appropriate forum was the Authority; (v) Sections 18(2) and (3) provide for compensation in terms of the Act for the default of the promoter for the reasons specified therein, and therefore the appropriate forum was the Adjudicating Officer, it was held by the Appellate Tribunal;

(vi) A complaint under Section 19(4), which made a reference to award of compensation, was held to be required to be placed before the Adjudicating Officer, while one under Section 19(7), which imposed a liability upon the allottee to pay interest on delayed payments to the promoter, was required to be filed before the Authority.

Based on the above findings, the appeals came to be allowed. The Appellate Tribunal did however clarify that the decision of the Tribunal was not to apply to matters which had attained finality. The pending complaints/ applications were to be transferred to the appropriate forum as per the findings set out above.

The Complete order can be accessed at https://rera.punjab.gov.in/pdf/OrdersJudgementsPbAT/20190405PbATAppealNo11to56of2018.pdf

in the absence of any pleadings or material placed on record for award of compensation on account of mental agony, compensation ought not to have been awarded.

 In the Matter of Estate Officer vs. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab and Anr. Complaint no. Appeal No. 65 of 2019 decided on 01.07.2019 before Punjab Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

In this case, the RERA Appellate Tribunal was called upon to examine the correctness of an order of the Adjudicating Officer, vide which compensation had been awarded under Section 72 of the Act on account of two heads, viz., mental agony and litigation expenses. While passing the Order for compensation, the Adjudicating Officer had opined that since the Act did not define the term compensation, and had thought fit to draw upon the scheme of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for settling the claims for compensation. 

The Appellate Tribunal held:

(i) The objects and reasons in the matter of award of compensation under those enactments acts have no connection even remotely with the award of compensation under the RERA and to draw a corollary from the said enactments for considering the award of compensation was wrong and illegal;

(ii) Section 72 of the Act operates a self contained code for consideration of the factors to be taken into account while deciding the quantum of compensation. In support of this proposition, the Tribunal also relied on the previous decision in the same matter, wherein it had been concluded by reference to Section 72(d) that the factors enumerated in the said provision were not exhaustive;

(iii) that in the absence of any pleadings or material placed on record for award of compensation on account of mental agony, compensation sought not to have been awarded. It was found that in order to support the plea of compensation, only a bald statement had been made and no material was placed on record to support the case of loss suffered on account of interest paid for bank loan availed. The Tribunal also relied on Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (2) SCC 111, for the proposition that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. 

The award of compensation on account of litigation expenses was upheld, while that on account of mental agony was set aside.

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. 

Only one condition of Either 500 Square meter of land or number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight inclusive of all phases, need to be satisfied under section 3(2) of the RERA Act.

In the Matter of Geetanjali Aman Constructions Vs Hrishikesh Ramesh Paranjpe Complaint no. SC10000672 decided on 10.07.2019 before Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal 

The Bench of Indira Jain J. Chairperson, SumantKolhe, Member (J), S.S. Sandhu, Member (A) of the Mumbai RERA Tribunal, held by the ratio of 2:1 that only one condition need to be satisfied

under section 3(2) of the RERA Act which states that no registration is                         required in those project

where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 square meters or the number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight inclusive of all phases. It was held principal question that needs to be addressed in this appeal revolves around the interpretation of word ―or‖ used in clause (a) of Section 3(2) of RERA. The crux is whether ―or‖ has to be read conjunctively or disjunctively. Needless to state that need to interpret the provisions of law would arise only when there is ambiguity left or a doubt is created in understanding the provisions. In our view in understanding the provision of law what should be done when the words are clear and unambiguous is to give the words that meaning which they convey plainly, irrespective of the consequence

Grant of relief of compensation can only be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer,if compensation is provided as a part of the multiple reliefs, the complaints have to be placed before the adjudicating officer.

 In the Matter of Sameer Mahawar Vs. MG Housing Pvt. Ltd. Complaint no. appeal no. 6/2018 decided on 02.05.2019  before Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

In this order after taking into consideration the provisions of Sections 11(4), 12, 14, 18, 19, 31, 34(f),  37, 38 and 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter called the Act) and rule 28 & 29 of Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter called the rules). The Honourable Appellate tribunal added that. “ Thus, as a result of our aforesaid discussions, we conclude and sum up our considered view in following manner :-

(i) That violations and causes of actions arising out of the same bundle of facts/rights giving rise to the multiple reliefs shall be placed before one and the same forum for adjudication in order to avoid the conflicting findings. 

(ii) The complaints for the grant of relief of compensation can only be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer as per the provisions of section 71 of the Act and rule 29 of the Rules. 

(iii) Similarly, if compensation is provided as a part of the multiple reliefs alongwith refund/return of investment with interest flowing from the same violation/violations and causes of action, the complaints have to be placed before the adjudicating officer exercising the powers under 3 Sections 31, 71(1) read with rule 29 of the Rules as only the adjudicating officer is competent to deal with the relief of compensation.”

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

Car parking space in open areas or stilt portions are not saleable along with the unit because they are "common areas".

 In the Matter of Yogesh Dixit vs. Manikcand Vasudha Developers (Sai Eshanya) Complaint no.CC005000000023018  decided on 03.10.2019 before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

MahaRERA, while dealing with the issue of car parking, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Nahalchand Laloochand Private Limited vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that under MOFA, stilt area cannot be treated as a garage and that parking areas (open to sky or stilted portion) cannot be excluded from common area and facilities under MOFA.

Accordingly, MahaRERA was of the view that the parking space in open parking area or stilt portion are not saleable along with the unit because they are "common areas".

MahaRERA further observed that the common areas are to be transferred to the society of the allottees by the developer and therefore the society vis-a-vis its members have the right to use each and every part of the common area including the open or stilted car parking space. The developer has no right to sell the stilt parking space as its control is with the society / association of the allottees.

Karnataka Rera - No Compensation is payable for mental agony in case of breach of a contract.

 In the Matter of Suman Rupanagudi vs. Adarsh Developers Complaint no. CMP/190912/0004118 decided on 31.01.2020  before Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Karnataka RERA tried to clear this ambiguity by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Union of India. (2000)6 SCC113 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering a case of breach of contract under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, held that no damages are payable for mental agony in case of breach of a contract.

In Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta,AIR1994 SC 787 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the liability for mental agony had been fixed not within the realms of contract but under the principles of administrative law.

In view of the same, Karnataka RERA refused to grant relief towards mental agony

Even if the Project is completed with occupancy Certificate and does not require Rera Registration, even then the Promoter is bound by the responsibilities assigned under the act.

In the Matter of Raghunath MS vs. Esteem Group Complaint no. CMP/180620/0000936  decided on 14.11.2019 before  Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority

In this case, the project was completed and conveyed to the association of allottees prior to the commencement of the Act. The allottee had purchased the unit from an erstwhile allottee. The developer contended that since the project was completed before the commencement of the Act and the occupancy certificate was obtained, they cannot be bound by the provisions of the Act. Referring to the Preamble of the Act, Karnataka RERA held that even if the project was completed prior to the commencement of the Act, the developer is bound by the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, Karnataka RERA directed the developer to hand over all documents and execute a registered deed to include civic amenities in favour of the association of allottees.

Provisions of the RERA Act will prevail over the terms of the agreement for sale between Allottee and Developer.

 In the Matter of Sundeep Anand and Ors. vs. Kul Developers Private Limited and Anr. Complaint no. CC005000000022985 decided on 11.11.2019 before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Laying down the controversy at rest, MahaRERA held that the provisions of the Act will prevail over the terms of the agreement for sale. 

In this case, MahaRERA was to determine whether the allottee would be entitled to get interest as provided under the Act or as per the agreement between the parties. MahaRERA observed that “The Act is a special enactment for protecting the interest of the allottees with a view to complete the project in a specific timeline. There is no phraseology such as ‘unless agreed to the contrary under Section 18’ which allows the terms of the agreement to prevail over the provisions of the Act.” MahaRERA held that interest is to be awarded at the rate as prescribed by the statute for the delayed possession.

MahaRERA - industrial units do not come under the definition of “real estate project” and the provisions of the Act are not applicable to industrial units.

 In the Matter of Techno Drive Engineer Pvt. Ltd. V/s Renaissance Indus Infra Pvt. Ltd. Complaint no. CC006000000078620 decided on 26.11.2019 before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

In the instant case, the Allottee had filed a complaint against the developer on the ground that the developer failed to hand over an industrial unit booked by the Allottee in accordance with the agreed date of possession. The Allottee had booked the unit for setting up its industrial manufacturing unit. MahaRERA dismissed the complaint stating that industrial units do not come under the definition of “real estate project” and the provisions of the Act are not applicable to industrial units.

The judgement can be accessed at https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-367507.pdf

The Authority has Jurisdiction to decide the matters between the Allottee and promoter , though their agreement has an arbitration clause in it.

In the Matter of Sarita Bhairu Chandekar & oth Vs Prashant Bhandari Complaint number CC005000000022925 decided on 11.11.2019  before  Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

The Authority Relied on the Judgment by Supreme Court in the matter of HDFC Bank Ltd-v/s-Satpal Singh Baxi (MANU/DE/5308/2012) in which the Supreme Court also held that if particular enactment creates special rights and obligations and gives special power to the Tribunal which are not in Civil Court such as tribunal constituted under Rent Control Act and the Industrial Disputes Act, the dispute arising under the said enactments cannot be arbitral otherwise other disputes are arbitral.

In Hemangi Enterprise-v/ s-Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia 2017 STPL 13227 SC, the Supreme Court found that the dispute between the parties was that of the tenant and landlord relating to leave and license agreement and therefore exciusive jurisdiction to deal with such dispute is conferred upon the Court of Small Causes and therefore, though there wasthe Arbitral Clause in the agreement, the Court held that the dispute was not arbitral. 

As per the Court

• Section 20 of RERA has special powers

• under Section 31 of it to adjudicate the dispute between the aggrieved person on one hand and the promoter, allottee, real estate agent on the other for violation or contravention of the provisions of RERA, Rules and Regulations made thereunder.

• Section 32,34,35 are the special provisions.

• Section 79 of RERA bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court from entertaining any matter which the Authority is empowered under the Act to determine.

• Section 59 lo 69 relates to the offences and penalties.

• A Special Forum of Adjudicating Officers whose qualification is that of District Judge has been set up by Section 71 of RERA to decide the matters arising out of Section 1.2, 74, 78 & 19.This case arises out of Section 18 of the Act for which a separate special forum has been provided by RERA and hence, the jurisdiction lies with the Authority and it cannot be delegated to the Arbitrator despite the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Arbitration Clause of the agreement. Hence, Court did not find any force in the respondents' submission that this Authority has no jurisdiction. The Court finds that the Authority has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

x

MahaRERA - Subsequent allottees are not entitled to any interest under Section 18 of the Act.

 In the Matter of Devindersingh Harbajansingh Anand and others Versus Poona Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. And others Complaint no.CC005000000011586 decided on 09.01.2019 before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

It has been held that subsequent allottees are not entitled to any interest under Section 18 of the Act. In the instant case, the complainants purchased the flat from the original allottees and were now claiming rent from the developer for the delay in possession on the basis of the date of possession mentioned in the earlier agreement between the original allottees and the developer.

MahaRERA stated that the subsequent allottees were aware at the time of purchase of the flat that the date of possession had lapsed and hence they were not entitled to any relief.

The order can be accessed on http://www.jclex.com/reradossier/subsequent%20allottees%20not%20entitled%20to%20interest.pdf

Rajasthan RERA - Complaint under Section 12 will not be dealt by the Authority and has to be compulsorily put before the Adjudicating Officer.

 In the Matter of Amit Kumar Lamba V/s Shekhar home Developers Complaint no.RAJ-RERA-C-2018-2193  decided on 23.04.2019 before Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority

The Bench of Sh. Nihal chand Chairman and and Rakesh jain member held that

Complaint for Relief under Section 12, Section 14(3), Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) are to be filed with and disposed of by the adjudicating officer alone, in the manner prescribed in the Rule 36 of the Rules. 

Complaints for Relief under Section 14(1) , Section 14(2) , Section 19(16) to 19(11) are to be filed with and disposed of by the Authority alone, in the manner prescribed in the Rule 35 of the Rules.

As regards to complaint under Section 18(1), the Complaint is to be filed with and disposed by authority if the complaint pertains to refund, interest , penalty or of other other directions.

The Complaint under Section 18(1) is to be disposed by the Adjudicating officer if the complaint pertains to the compensation only.

The copy of Detailed order can be found at https://rera.rajasthan.gov.in/Content/pdf/2018-2193%20001-converted.pdf

If the tax amount is credited to the State Government in the name of the allottee the predominant role is of the allottee and for that the Promoter cannot be held responsible to refund the VAT payment.

  In the Matter of Ashutosh Suresh Bagh v/s. The Member & Adjudicating Officer & Ors. Complaint no. AT005000000000120 decided on 02.05.2018 before Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal

The Appellate Authority Held that 

"While deciding claims between the allottees and meeting with controversies, or the difficulties faced by the Promoter, a harmonious approach is imperative to be adopted. This is moreso the cumulative effect of the Statute coupled with Sections 71(3), 72, 38, Preamble and impetus of Section 18 of

RERA Ad is to be coherently considered. Going by these provisions and reading the order under challenge, it is apparent that refund of VAT could not be from the Promoter as the tax amount is credited to the State Government at the credit ,/ in the name of the allottee. Whatever would be the refund, would be available subject to termination of existing agreement between the parties and on an application to the concerned authorities by the allottees. In both these situations, the predominant role is of the allottee and for that the Promoter cannot be held responsible to refund the VAT payment. 

Statutory payments like stamp duty, VAT, service tax are to be deducted and flat purchaser is not entitled for the same

In the Matter of Bhoomi And Arcade Associates vs Alistair Gomes, Appeal No. AT 005000010880

Mumbai Rera Authority ordered the promoter to refund the entire amount of Rs.3,40,491/- expended by the complainant with regard to the ancillary expenses borne towards registration, stamp duty, processing fees, and finance company charge.

The Mumbai RERA Tribunal overruling the order of the Authority held that in the proposition settled in the case of Ashutosh Suresh Bagh v/s. The Member & Adjudicating Officer & Ors. and conjunctive reading of clauses 6 and 10 of the Agreement entered between the parties, it is clear that statutory payments like stamp duty, VAT, service tax are to be deducted and flat purchaser is not entitled for the same.

MahaRERA directed the Complainant to form the association of allottees and initiate the revocation under section 7 of RERA, The Respondent Builder to provide the Allottee Data to the Complainants.

 In the Matter of Parkaj Vrailal Mehta & others Vs. Shree Adiraj Laxmi Builders Pvt. Ltd Complaint no.CC006000000012158 decided on 11.09.2019  before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

MahaRERA through its order dated 11th September 2019 directed promoter ―Shree Adiraj Laxmi Builders Pvt. Ltd‖ (Maha RERA Reg. No. P51700013358)

to enable the allottees to form an association of allottees (AOA) so the decision for initiating section 7 i.e. revocation of the project may be taken by them.

 Allottees of the project ―Adiraj Crystal‖ situated at Ambernath, Thane filed various complaints stating that the Respondent has failed to execute and register the agreements for sale, complete the Project and hand over possession. During the proceeding of the case it was found/declared that the project registration has lapsed. Further, the construction work of the project could not be completed because of reasons which were beyond the promoter‘s control. 

Authority directed the Respondent to handover the list of allottees of the said project, along with their contact details, to the Complainants within 30 days from the date of this Order, to enable the allottees to take an informed decision Pertaining to the said project and if the association of allottees may like to Proceed for revocation under Section 7/8 of the Act. 

The Respondent may seek the approval of the association of allottees for order under Section7(3)

In the similar Matter of Milind Dhande & others Vs. Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd. Complaint no.CC006000000055794 decided on 06.08.2019 before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

MahaRERA ordered the Respondent to handover the list of allottees of the project ―Whispering Towers EFG Wings‖ to Association of allottees so that decision regarding revocation of registration under Section 7 of the RERA Act can be taken by them. 

Facts 

1. The Complainants have booked apartments in the project 'Whispering Towers EFG Wings' situated at Kurla, Mumbai via registered agreements for sale. The Complainants have alleged that the date of possession as stipulated by the said agreements has already been lapsed. Therefore, they prayed that since the Respondent has failed to hand over the possession of the apartments within the stipulated period, they be directed to pay interest, on delay or refund the amounts paid as per the provisions of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. 

2. The Authorized representative for the Respondent explained that the construction work of the project could not be completed because of reasons which were beyond the Respondent's control. Specifically, he submitted that the due to financial constraints and unpaid dues of the Planning Authority and various Banks, which has extended project loans, the project has got stalled. 

3. In Complaint no. CC006000000056289, the Respondent had submitted that he is in advanced talks with another promoter/ financer and commits to revive and restart the project by April, 2019 and complete the project with occupation certificate by December 30, 2020. 

4. Since the Respondent has failed to revive the project by April, 2019 as committed, the association of Allottees may be proceeded with revocation of registration of the project under Section 7 of the RERA Act. 

5. In view of the above facts, the Respondent is directed to handover the list of Allottees of the said project, with contact details, to the Complainants within 30 days from the date of this Order, to enable the Allottees to take a decision pertaining to the said project and whether the association of Allottees may like to proceed with revocation of registration under Section 7 of the Act or not. 

6. The Respondent may seek the approval of the association of allottees for order under Section 7(3) of the said Act, as per MahaRERA Order no 7/ 2019 dated February 8, 2019 on Revocation of Registration of Project for reviving and completing the said project.

An unregistered project shall be considered at par with the project of which the registration has been cancelled otherwise the protection to association of allottees under section 8 will not be available to allottees

 In the Matter of Sabiha and Ors vs Anil Jindal, SRS Real Infrastructure Complaint no.14 of 2019 decided on 30.07.2019 before Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Panchkula

• It was held by the Authority that allottees of the project have formed an association (RWA in brief) and got it registered under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. 

• RWA has estimated that an amount of about Rs. 6.5 crore has to be incurred to complete the project. The association having fulfilled all the tasks assigned to it by the Authority has a right to take over the project for completing it themselves and respondents were restrained for creating any third party interest in the project. 

• The project was unregistered as promoters failed to register the complaint and violated the mandate of section 3 of the Act and section 7 was applicable which deals with revocation.

•  The Authority in its order held that when a promoter fails to register the  project despite clearly being aware that he should do so, such projects must be treated at par with the projects of which the registration is cancelled by the Authority. 

• Not taking this view will create an anomalous situation and would adversely jeopardize the interest of the allottees of the project of which the promoters are deliberately refusing to finish the project. 

• Not taking such a view would also amount to saying that the protection of Section 8 is not available to the Allottees of an unregistered project. In the considered view or this Authority an unregistered project shall be considered at par with the project of which the registration has been cancelled. Having said so, now the protection of Section 8 must be granted to the allottees of the present project of the respondent.

x

If the developer is not building the project as promised in the brochure, the Authority directed the promoter to complete the project as promised in brochure and rectify the mistake and also for compensation they can approach the Adjudicating Authority

 In the Matter of Pawan Beniwal and Kavita Vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd Complaint no.Raj-RERA-C-2017-2007 decided on 20.06.2019  before Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority

• The Rajasthan Real Estate Authority presided by Shri Nihal Chand Goel and Shri Rakesh Jain held that the Allottee/complainant contended that the developer is not developing these flats as per their brochure in that they have converted the lawn of the flat into a common facility area by making five sewerage manholes in the backyard. 

• The issue has not been resolved despite complaints made to the non-complainant. Even as per para 1(a) of the Agreement, it is clear that a lawn was supposed to be part of these flats at ground floor, but no lawn has been developed. 

• The competent Authority issued the following directions:

• (i) The non-complainant shall cover the manholes and develop the back yard/ rear set back into a proper lawn; 

• (ii) The complainants shall take possession of the their respective floors; and then point out the difficulties and deficiencies in workmanship, quality or provision of services to the promoter to rectify such difficulties and deficiencies, at no cost to the complainants, Within 30 days thereof; 

• (iii) If, before or after giving possession, the non-complainant does not comply with the directions given hereinbefore, the complainants will be at liberty to approach the Adjudicating Officer for relief under section 14(3) of the Act. Besides this, the complainants will also be at liberty to approach the Adjudicating Officer for relief of compensation under section 12 and section 18(1) of the Act.

x

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

Developers failing to transfer the benefits of GST reduction to homebuyers may end up compensating them with penalty in case the homebuyer withdraws from the project.

 In the Matter of Rajesh Vs. M/s Alliance Villa Pvt. Ltd Complaint no. 189 of 2019 decided on 22.11.2019 before Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority

• The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) directed a promoter to refund the booking amount with fine, after the latter refused to reduce the GST rate from 12% to 5%.

• The case relates to a complaint filed by Rajesh over booking a villa developed by Alliance Villa Pvt. Ltd at Thaiyur on Old Mahabalipuram Road (OMR) on the outskirts of the city. 

• The homebuyer entered an agreement with the developer for land and construction of a row villa in a project named ‘Alliance Humming Gardens‘ by paying Rs 4.18 lakh of the total villa price estimated as Rs 55.67 lakh. 

• While the agreement was entered with a GST rate of 12% at the time, the Centre revised the GST rate from 12% to 5%, two months later. 

• The complainant submitted to the realty regulator that the developer insisted he pay GST at old rates against the government notification, committing a breach of trust. Following this, the homebuyer withdrew from the project.

• As the developer did not refund the amount paid for booking the villa, the home buyer filed a complaint with the TNRERA. G Saravanan, adjudicating officer of TNRERA, said that for the ongoing projects, the promoter has an option to pay GST at old rates (12%), avail permissible input tax credit and pass on the benefit of the availed credit to homebuyers.

•  When the homebuyer questioned the developer, the latter stated that the 12% GST was compulsory, the order added. As per Section 19(1) of the RERA Act, the allottee has a right to all information regarding the villa intended to be purchased by him. 

• Taking all this into consideration, the adjudicating officer said the complainant was entitled for refund of the entire amount paid with an interest rate of 10.15%, besides Rs 25,000 and Rs 15,000 as compensation and for legal expenses.