India: RERA Dossier - Volume II January 2022 – March 2022

INTRODUCTION

This dossier ("Dossier") intends to be a one stop guide to keep our readers abreast with the significant judgements, orders, circulars, and directions passed in relation to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("the Act") and the rules thereunder which are beneficial for all the stakeholders of this ever-expanding industry. Volume 2 of the Dossier is a compilation of all the impactful judgments/orders passed in the first quarter of the year 2022, i.e., from January 2022 to March 2022 by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority ("MahaRERA"), the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ("MahaREAT"), the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for the National Capital Territory of Delhi ("Delhi RERA"), the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority ("HRERA") and the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority ("Rajasthan RERA"). The Volume 2 of the Dossier also provides a compilation of all the relevant regulatory circulars, orders, and directions issued by MahaRERA for the same aforementioned period.

We do hope you find this volume of the Dossier engaging, insightful and useful. We would appreciate any feedback or suggestions that our readers may have on this Dossier.

Stay tuned for the next Volume!

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS PASSED BY REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AND TRIBUNALS

Website address of authority to be mentioned in advertisement

Rajasthan RERA

Suo Moto Vs. Mukundra Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.

As per Section 11(2) of the Act, an advertisement/prospectus issued/published is required to mention the website address of the concerned authority, citing all details of the registered project including the registration number. In the present case, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent, Mukundra Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. ("Mukundra Infra") for issuing advertisements for its registered project Mukundra Prime without mentioning the website of the Rajasthan RERA. Mukundra Infra admitted its mistake and submitted that it inadvertently omitted to mention the website of Rajasthan RERA and apologised for the same. Mukundra Infra also clarified that though the advertisement was given by Bharat Jan Awas Yojana, a registered real estate agent, Mukundra Infra, being the principal, acceded to the violation of Section 11(2) of the Act. The Rajasthan RERA found that there was a violation of Section 11(2) of the Act for advertisement for which Mukundra Infra and also the concerned real estate agents are liable to be penalised. The Rajasthan RERA took a lenient view as Mukundra Infra admitted its mistake and imposed a penalty of INR 12,500/- (Indian Rupees Twelve Thousand and Five Hundred only) on Mukundra Infra under Section 61 of the Act for violation of Section 11(2) of the Act to be deposited with the Rajasthan RERA within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of issue of the order. The Rajasthan RERA also directed that a separate notice shall be issued to the real estate agent for publishing the impugned advertisement.

You can view the order here.

Conflict between the IBC and the Act

Rajasthan RERA

Satya Narayan Agarwal & Ors. Vs. Balajidham Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. through its liquidator (Ms. Sarita Duck)

The complainants, Satya Narayan Agarwal and two others in the present case filed a complaint wherein they submitted a scheme for the completion of the stalled project and sought orders for the implementation of the scheme. The respondent, Balajidham Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. through its liquidator, contended that under the order of Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT") Jaipur Bench the company is under liquidation and therefore, a moratorium under Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC") applies. As such, the complaint cannot be proceeded without the leave of the NCLT. The complainants relied on the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ("SC") in the case of Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1005) and submitted that the Act, IBC and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("CPA") provide concurrent remedies to the allottees. The Rajasthan RERA observed that while the IBC and the Act provide concurrent remedies to the allottees, it is a settled law that in the event of a conflict between the two acts, provisions of the IBC shall prevail over the Act. The Rajasthan RERA referring to Section 33(5) of the IBC held that if it proceeded with the complaint without obtaining the leave of the NCLT and passed any order, it will be in conflict with the moratorium as the complaint was filed after the order for liquidation was passed. The Rajasthan RERA stayed the proceedings until the liquidation proceedings stand concluded or the NCLT grants leave to the Rajasthan RERA to proceed with the matter of completion of the project.

You can view the order here.

Application of the Act in relation to ongoing project

Rajasthan RERA

Mukesh Vs. Krish Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.

The complainant, Mukesh had booked a flat in the respondent's, Krish Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd's ("Krish Infra") project and subsequently, possession of the flat was handed over to the respondent. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint alleging various violations of the allotment agreement and praying for other reliefs. The respondent contended that as per clause (iv) of the Explanation to Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules 2017 ("Rajasthan RERA Rules") the project is not required to be registered under the Act and therefore, Rajasthan RERA did not have jurisdiction. Mukesh submitted that the project was not completed before the commencement of the Act and hence was an 'ongoing project'. The Rajasthan RERA, relying on the report filed by Bhiwadi Integrated Development Authority ("BIDA") observed that Krish Infra had submitted the application for the occupancy certificate ("OC") with BIDA. The Rajasthan RERA while noting that the application was made for OC and not the completion certificate ("CC"), observed that such an application for OC incorporates an application for CC. Further, the Rajasthan RERA observed that a Fire NOC is issued by local bodies only when the project is completed and electric, water supply and fire systems are in place and as such the project was complete. Accordingly, the Rajasthan RERA held that since the project was not an ongoing project and was not required to be registered, it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

You can view the order here.

Delhi RERA

Avinash Kumar More Vs. Antriksh Engicon Pvt. Ltd.

The complainant, Mr. Avinash Kumar More contended that the respondent, Antriksh Engicon Pvt. Ltd. failed to hand over the possession of the proposed apartment or refund the balance of monies.

The first proviso to Section 3 of the Act makes it mandatory for "ongoing projects" to register with the relevant authority. However, it was contended by the respondent that the Act was not in force at the time of launching the project and the complainant, out of his own free will, signed the memorandum of understanding and the matter should be considered as a matter of breach of the agreement. The respondent also contended that since administrative delays were beyond the control of the respondent and were a force majeure event, the same had a cascading effect and occasioned consequent delays in the project.

The Delhi RERA was of the view that the registration of a promoter is not a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction. Further, the Delhi RERA observed that the regulatory authority has exclusive jurisdiction to direct refund of the amount, and interest on the refund amount to the allottees. Accordingly, the Delhi RERA directed the respondent to pay the entire amount to the complainant within 45 (forty-five) days of issuance of the order along with interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent) per annum from the date of payment of each sum until the date of its actual return.

You can view the order here.

Jurisdiction of RERA in case of co-operative societies

Praveen Alok Vs. Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd.

The present case deals with the issue of jurisdiction of Delhi RERA where the respondent is a society registered under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 ("MSCS Act"). The respondent, Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd. contended that it is a society registered under MSCS Act and the Delhi RERA lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as it is hit by Sections 84 and 115 of the MSCS Act. The respondent further submitted that Section 84 of MSCS Act makes it abundantly clear that the dispute between the parties is to be settled before the arbitrator appointed by the Central Registrar and the decision of the said arbitrator shall be final and cannot be called into question by any authority. As such, the obligations of both parties are defined under the MSCS Act and the respondent has not registered with RERA Delhi.

The Delhi RERA observed that clause (iv) of Section 2(zk) of the Act defines the promoter as "an apex State level co- operative housing finance society and a primary co-operative housing society which constructs apartments or buildings for its members or in respect of the allottees of such apartments or buildings". Further, Section 89 of the Act gives overriding effect to anything inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Considering the aforesaid provisions of the Act, the Delhi RERA held that the contention of the respondent that the Act is not applicable to co-operative housing societies cannot be considered valid. The reason for the same was that the respondents had placed a condition upon the members in the "Declaration cum Expression of Interest" that the project is subject to the provisions of the Act. Further, the Delhi RERA observed that Rule 33(1) of the National Capital Territory of Delhi Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (General) Rules, 2016 ("Delhi RERA Rules"), provides that an aggrieved person may file a complaint with Delhi RERA for any violation under the Act in Form M.

The complainant, Praveen Alok was claiming a "refund" with interest, therefore, the complaint in Form M was maintainable in the present complaint. The Delhi RERA directed the respondents to refund the entire amount to the complainant within 45 (forty-five) days of issuance of the order along with interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent) per annum from the date of payment of each sum until the date of its actual return.

You can view the order here.

Jurisdiction of single bench of MahaREAT

Bhavin Keshavji Gala Vs. M/s. Om Sai Infra and Anr.

MahaREAT

Bhavin Keshavji Gala ("Applicant") had procured an order of MahaREAT against M/s. Om Sai Infra and M/s. Om Sai Group ("Non-Applicant") for refund along with interest for delay in handing over possession of the unit. The Applicant approached the MahaREAT for execution of the order passed in his favour.

The Non-Applicant objected to the notice for the execution of the Application on the ground that the single bench of MahaREAT lacked inherent jurisdiction to hear an appeal since Section 43(3) of the Act lays down specifically that every bench of an appellate tribunal shall consist of at least one judicial member and one administrative or technical member. The Non-Applicant relied on the MahaREAT order in Govind Meghraj Saraogi V/s. Wondervalue Developers Pvt Ltd. (Execution application No. 70 of 2019) and the SC judgment in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of UP & Ors. (2021 SCC Online SC 1044) wherein it was held that the order passed by a single bench without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be enforced or executed.

The Applicant argued that the improper composition of the appellate tribunal does not affect the merits of the case and is to be seen as an irregularity in the procedure.

The MahaREAT relied on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order in Man Global Ltd. V/s Bharat Prakash Joukani and Larsen and Toubro Ltd. V/s Ms Rekha Sinha (2019 SCC Online Bom 2466) which held that an order passed by a single member of the appellate tribunal is without jurisdiction and is void ab initio.

Therefore, the MahaREAT dismissed the execution application and directed the matter to be listed for a final hearing.

You can view the order here.

MahaRERA

Archana Karnani and Ors. Vs. Kiyana Ventures LLP

The respondent, Kiyana Ventures LLP in this case raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction of a single bench of MahaRERA to hear the complaints singly. The MahaRERA relied on the judgement passed by the Hon'ble SC in M/s. Newtech promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP and Ors. (2021 SCC Online SC 1044) wherein the said issue was dealt with and it was held that the single bench has jurisdiction to decide the complaints singly.

Accordingly, the MahaRERA ruled that the preliminary issue of jurisdiction raised by the respondent does not survive and the single bench of MahaRERA can decide complaints singly on merits.

You can view the order here.

Complaint not maintainable in absence of documentary proof

Manoj Kumar Kukreja Vs. Jaipur Landmark Pvt. Ltd

In the present case, applicant, Manoj Kumar booked a flat in respondent's, Jaipur Landmark Pvt. Ltd.'s ("Jaipur Landmark") project of which delivery was promised within 6 (six) months. Since the delivery of the flat was not made within the stipulated time, Manoj Kumar prayed for a refund along with the bank loan amount. As a tripartite agreement was executed between Manoj Kumar, Jaipur Landmark and Axis Bank, Manoj Kumar also filed an application to implead Axis Bank in the complaint. Jaipur Landmark time and again asked for the submission of a copy of the agreement for sale as all records were burnt due to a fire accident in the office of Jaipur Landmark. The Rajasthan RERA observed that a lot of opportunities were given to Manoj Kumar, either before the conciliation forum or before the Rajasthan RERA, to provide a copy of the agreement for sale. The Rajasthan RERA also observed that Manoj Kumar did not prove the quantum of the amount that was deposited with Jaipur Landmark and details of payment of instalments were also never provided to the Rajasthan RERA. The Rajasthan RERA held that in the absence of documentary proof, it does not find it appropriate to entertain the complaint. The Rajasthan RERA also dismissed the application for impleading Axis Bank as a respondent on the ground that as per Section 31 of the Act only the promoter, allottee and real estate agent are the aggrieved parties and unless the bank takes over the property as assignee of the promoter, it is not a necessary party.

You can view the order here.

Assured return plan

Rajasthan RERA

Chhagan Lal Phoolwaria Vs. Advance India Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Chhagan Lal Phoolwaria ("Complainant") had booked two shops in the project called "Advance Saga Castle" ("Project") and he had opted for an Assured return plan ("ARP") wherein he would be entitled to receive interest for 3 (three) years at the rate of 12% (twelve percent) per annum on the amounts deposited in the Project subject to deduction of tax deducted at source (TDS) on a quarterly basis.

The Complainant had deposited considerable amounts with the promoters under the ARP. The possession of two shops in the Project was to be handed over in December 2016 as per the agreement for sale. However, the Project was an "ongoing project" when the Act came into force and hence, the Project was registered with Rajasthan RERA and the possession date after the extension was revised to June 2022.

The Complainant approached the Rajasthan RERA for a refund of the amounts paid along with interest for the failure of the developer to hand over the possession as per the agreement for sale. The promoter replied that the benefits under the ARP cannot be availed by the Complainant since he had failed in making the relevant tax payments in terms of the agreement for sale and the deposit of amounts in respect of the ARP were not made according to the terms and conditions of the ARP.

The Rajasthan RERA held that since the promoter had issued a receipt in 2014 stating that the Complainant is entitled to benefits under ARP and since the promoter has made payment of interest under ARP, the promoter is estopped from arguing the same. With respect to the issue of tax payment, it was held that the promoter could have adjusted the tax payments against the benefits of the ARP. It was further held that the rights of the Complainant for seeking a refund along with interest will not be hampered by the possession date stated on Rajasthan RERA's website and will be governed by the respective agreement for sale.

In view of the circumstances of the case, the Rajasthan RERA denied refund to the Complainant but allowed interest at the rate of 9.3% (nine point three percent) from January 2018 till the handover of the possession of the flat and allowed the promoter to adjust the interest with the tax liability of the Complainant under the agreement for sale.

You can view the order here.

Heirs of deceased allottee can apply for refund after project completion

Rajasthan RERA

Hukamraj Sajjanraj Kumbhat Vs. Arihant Superstructures Ltd.

The complainant, Hukamraj Sajjanraj Kumbhat filed this case under Section 31 of the Act on behalf of his wife, Late Indu Kumbhat, who passed away in September 2017. In her lifetime, the complainant's wife had booked two flats in the respondent's project, Arihant Superstructures Ltd. The complainant was seeking the relief of refund along with interest and compensation as the possession was not delivered. The complainant whilst relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble SC in Fortune Infrastructure & Ors. Vs. Trevor D'Lima & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3533-3534 of 2017) contended that even though the delivery period was not specifically mentioned in the allotment letter, it should not mean that the complainant has to wait indefinitely for the allotted flats.

The respondent contended that the authority did not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint on the ground that (i) the project was completed before the commencement of the Act; (ii) the complainant did not come forward to take possession till date; and (iii) the project stood completed even before the present complaints were filed and no demand for refund was made prior to the complaint.

The Rajasthan RERA inter alia observed that the project was not completed as on the date of commencement of the Act as the CC presented by the respondent cannot be held as valid as it was issued by an architect who is not empowered by the Government of competent authority to do so and it does not carry the prescribed checklist with it. The Rajasthan RERA further observed that the whole project was to be registered under the Act and the dispute was amenable to its jurisdiction. The Rajasthan RERA stated that it does not allow refund of the deposited amount after a project has been completed or when the project is near completion. However, the Rajasthan RERA was of the view that as the complaint presented unique facts, the general practice does not deserve to be applied in the present case on the grounds that (i) there was no agreement for sale executed in the present case and the legal heirs of the deceased allottee were not bound to abide by an agreement which was never executed by the deceased allottee or on the presumption that it may have been executed; (ii) it was the respondent's duty to bring the legal heirs of the deceased allottee on record at the earliest opportunity, enter into an agreement with them and in case of their unwillingness, refund to them the money deposited by the deceased allottee; and (iii) the project was unreasonably delayed and the impact of such default should not fall upon the legal heir of the deceased allottee. For the aforementioned reasons, the Rajasthan RERA held that the complainant was not bound to accept the possession and was entitled to a refund of the deposited amount along with interest under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Act.

You can view the order here.

Non-compliance of RERA order

MahaRERA

Priyesh Vijaywargi Vs. Vikramprakash Takale & Harishwar Madhukarmendre and Anr.

The complainant, Priyesh Vijaywargi filed the complaint seeking direction to the respondent from MahaRERA for refund of the entire amount paid along with interest and compensation under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act in respect of the booking of a flat. The complainant had earlier filed a complaint against the promoter since the promoter had accepted more than 10% (ten percent) of the consideration in respect of the said unit, however, no agreement for sale was registered. The MahaRERA in that earlier order levied a penalty on the promoter along with directions to register an agreement for sale.

The claim of the complainant, Priyesh Vijaywargi in the latter complaint was refuted by the respondents, (i) Vikramprakash Takale & Harishwar Madhukarmendre and (ii) Kalash Builders and Developers, mainly on the ground that the MahaRERA cannot review its own order passed in the earlier complaint filed by the complainant as it had already been disposed of.

The MahaRERA observed that the respondents have filed their written submissions on record of MahaRERA, however, they have not contested the non-compliance of the order passed by MahaRERA in the previous complaint and the reasons attached to it. The MahaRERA in the present case was of the view that the contention of the respondents has no substance in law nor is hit by the law of res-judicata as the cause of action and reliefs sought in both the complaints were different. The MahaRERA held that the respondents have failed to comply with the previous order passed by the MahaRERA, and the penalty to MahaRERA was increased exponentially as per the provision of Section 63 of the Act.

You can view the order here.

Unilateral change in allotment of unit by promoter

MahaRERA

Mrs. Raju Chawla Vs. Dilip Estate & Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.

The complainant, Mrs. Raju Chawla a senior citizen booked a residential flat on the 6th floor, numbered 601, admeasuring 2300 sq. ft. with a commitment from the respondent, Dilip Estate & Town Planner Pvt. Ltd. that there would be 1 flat per floor along with 3 allotted open car parking. There was no agreement for sale executed and the allotment letter was silent on the date of possession, but the complainant was orally informed at the time of booking that the possession of the flat would be given within a span of 24 (twenty four) months from the date of the said allotment letter. However, the respondent unilaterally informed the complainant that in light of the proposed amendment of sanctioned plans, the respondent would now allocate the 1st floor to her instead of the 6th floor. The complainant addressed multiple letters to the respondent to provide her with the proposed sanctioned plans, but the respondent replied with no- objection draft consent letters.

The respondent contended that the Ministry of Civil Aviation raised an issue on the sanctioned height owing to a part of the project falling within the radius of the airport which resulted in a delay in construction and the respondent was constrained to demolish two slabs for the structure constructed and reduce the height and modify the plans accordingly. The complainant, on the other hand, mainly contended that the respondent has agreed to allot her flat on the 6th habitable floor, however now it is planning to add a podium on the 1st floor and is giving her a flat on the 5th floor and hence, she refused to sign the registered agreement for sale.

The MahaRERA perused the allotment letter and the rival submissions made by both parties and observed that prima facie it appeared that the respondent had allotted Flat no. 601 on the 6th floor of the building, however nowhere it was mentioned that the said floor includes the 1st floor as a podium. Accordingly, MahaRERA held that since the flat on the 6th floor was allotted to the complainant, the respondent now cannot take the stand, after a lapse of about more than 6 (six) years, that the 1st floor is the podium and hence the 5th floor is actually allotted to the complainant. If that was the case, nothing should prevent the respondent to clarify the said issue in the allotment letter issued in favour of the complainant. The complainant, being an allottee should have been informed about the same at the time of booking. MahaRERA directed the respondents to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant along with interest at the rate prescribed under the Act and the relevant rules made thereunder from the date of payment till the actual realization of the said amount to the complainant.

You can view the order here.

Condonation of delay

Samudra Darshan Gruhparvesh LLP Vs. Tangerine Almeida and Ors.

MahaREAT

The applicant, Samudra Darshan Gruhparvesh LLP in the present case was seeking condonation of delay against the order passed by MahaRERA dated November 05, 2019. The applicant contended that the single bench of MahaRERA authority had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the said order was communicated by MahaRERA to the society, Samudra Darshan CHS and not to the applicant. After the receipt of the impugned order, the society filed a review application consequent to which the operation of the order was stayed by MahaRERA. As the review of the order was preferred by the society on similar lines to the applicant's pleadings, the applicant did not file a review to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. However, the applicant filed an affidavit in support of the review application filed by the society. Additionally, it was contended that the applicant pursued the remedy of the review before the MahaREAT filed by the society and therefore the period spent in litigation by the applicant ought to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal. Further, since there was already a stay on the impugned order granted by the MahaREAT and since the applicant was supporting the review preferred by the society, the review as per Regulation 36 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2017 ("RERA General Regulations") was maintainable only if no appeal was filed before the tribunal under Section 44 of the Act.

The MahaREAT observed that filing of appeal emanating from a grievance caused to the applicant in its individual capacity is not dependent on any action or the relevant process initiated by the society which is a separate and independent entity. The provisions of Regulation 36 of RERA General Regulations are not applicable to the applicant in the present case and accordingly the applicant is not absolved of the substantive obligation of filing an appeal. The MahaREAT whilst dismissing the appeal for condonation of delay further observed that the applicant cannot take advantage of the review proceeding filed by the society as the said proceeding neither posed any hindrance in filing an appeal by the applicant nor created any rights in favour of the applicant to waive the legal requirement for filing the appeal.

You can view the order here.

Pradeep Rochlani & Anr. Vs. Real Gem Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

MahaREAT

The applicant, Pradeep Rochlani & Anr. in the present case moved an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the order dated November 02, 2020 passed by MahaRERA on the ground that they resided in Dubai and owing to the travel restrictions due to Covid-19, the applicants could not file the appeal within the period of limitation. The applicants submitted that on March 23, 2020, the Hon'ble SC was pleased to pass an order in the Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 and extended time for filing petitions/ applications/ appeals/ all other proceedings in courts/ tribunals across India from March 15, 2020 till further orders. As such, the applicant contended that the delay is not intentional or deliberate and was liable to be condoned.

The non-applicant, Real Gem Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., on the other hand, contended that the applicant's contention is not genuine. Even if there were travel restrictions owing to Covid-19, the applicants were not barred from filing the appeal online on the website of MahaREAT. The MahaREAT observed that the words "sufficient cause" should receive liberal consideration so as to advance substantial justice when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bonafide, deliberate or negligence on the part of the applicant. There was no material on record to show that the applicants, with the intention of malafide, preferred the captioned appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation and there were no dilatory tactics on the part of the applicants. Therefore, the MahaREAT was of the view that the applicants have satisfactorily established sufficient cause and the delay shall be condoned.

You can view the order here.

Failure to execute conveyance deed in favour of allottees

Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma and Smt. Meenakshi Sharma Vs. M/s. M3M India Pvt. Ltd.

HRERA

The complaint was filed by the complainants, Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma and Smt. Meenakshi Sharma under Section 31 of the Act read with Rule 29 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 against the respondent, M/s. M3M India Pvt. Ltd. The complainant sought directions to receive an accumulative sum including rental loss, additional stamp duty incurred, mental agony, cost of litigation and Goods and Services Tax (GST) charges on the maintenance bills. The complainant contended that the respondent handed over the possession of the concerned unit in the year 2018 but did not execute a registered conveyance deed nor handed over common areas to the association of allottees. It was only in the year 2021 and that too, after the order passed by the present forum, that the respondent executed the conveyance deed after a gap of 3 (three) years and 4 (four) months. In the meanwhile, rates of stamp duty were revised with effect from December 29, 2020 and the complainants had to pay additional stamp duty of more than INR 2,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Two Lakhs only). Further, the complainant contended that the inordinate delay in execution of the conveyance deed by the respondent caused them financial loss and mental agony in the shape of loss of rental value of the property. The respondent on the other hand contented that the complainants failed to get the conveyance deed registered in the year 2019 due to the deficiency of INR 200/- (Indian Rupees Two Hundred only) towards stamp duty, therefore, the conveyance deed could not be executed. Thereafter, due to Covid-19 and the closure of the registration process from March 2020 to August 2020, the same could not be registered and the stamp duty charges were enhanced by the concerned department in the month of December 2020.

The HRERA held that it was due to the negligence of the respondent in the first place for which the complainants had to suffer an additional stamp duty of more than INR 2,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Two Lakhs only). Accordingly, the HRERA directed that the respondent was liable to reimburse the sum of additional stamp duty and any other compensation for not handing over necessary documents including of common areas to the association of allottees. Further, the HRERA directed that the respondent was also liable to pay the GST on maintenance amount, litigation expenses and mental agony as claimed by the complainant.

You can view the order here.

IMPORTANT CIRCULARS, ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY MAHARERA

Disclosure of information in public domain

The MahaRERA has vide its Circular No. 40/2022 dated January 14, 2022 directed that the following documents uploaded by the promoters in respect of their real estate project shall be made available in the public domain:

• Form 1: Certificate issued by the project architect at the time of registration of an ongoing project and for withdrawal of money from RERA designated account.
• Form 2: Certificate issued by the project engineer at the time of registration of an ongoing project and for withdrawal of money from RERA designated account.
• Form 2 A: Certificate issued by the engineer which is to be submitted at the end of every financial year till the completion of the project.
• Form 4: Certificate issued by the architect on completion of the project.
• Form 5: Certificate containing the annual report on the statement of accounts issued on the letterhead of the chartered accountant who is the annual auditor of the promoters' company/firm.
• Disclosure of sold/booked inventory (building-wise) in the project.
• Report from CERSAI on security interest created in the real estate project that is available on the CERSAI website, accessible at www.cersai.ore.in.
• Declaration about commencement certificate.

The said circular which can be accessed herecame into effect from December 22, 2021.

Submission of certificates to scheduled bank

The MahaRERA has vide its Circular No. 39A/2022 dated March 17, 2022 amended the Circular No. 39/2021 dated December 28, 2021 in respect of the submission of certificates from a chartered accountant, architect and engineer for withdrawal of amounts from the scheduled bank in respect of the project. The MahaRERA vide Circular No. 39/2021 directed the promoter of a project to submit fresh certificates at every withdrawal to the scheduled bank and upload the same on the RERA website.

Circular No. 39/2022 has been amended vide Circular 39A/2022 to direct that when withdrawal by a promoter is made in tranches then fresh certificates of chartered accountant, architect and engineer need not be submitted for every tranche of withdrawal. A copy of the original certificates which entitled the promoter to withdraw the amounts as per the limit originally/first time shall be submitted to the bank for every withdrawal along with a letter from the promoter recording the dates of the original certificates and the amount of withdrawal to be made, and the same shall be uploaded online on the RERA website.

The said circular which can be accessed herecame into effect from December 28, 2021.

Modified version for filing online complaints

The MahaRERA has vide its Circular No. 41/2022 dated March 28, 2022 proposed to implement a new modified version for filing online complaints from March 30, 2022. Earlier, while registering a complaint online, the authorized representatives of the complainant provided their personal credentials which resulted in difficulties for the complainants to access their complaints. This also led to various administrative issues.

To remedy the same, the MahaRERA had proposed to include the following fields for filing online complaints:

• Complainant Name;
• Complainant Middle Name;
• Complainant Last Name;
• Complainant Mobile Number;
• Complainant Email ID; and
• Advocate Contact Details.

The said circular which can be accessed herecame into effect from March 30, 2022.

GLOSSARY

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.