MREAT sets aside MahaRERA order
A recent Maharashtra Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) judgment set aside a MahaRERA order and directed the ITMC developers, promoters of the Sai Sapphire project at Vikhroli, to pay interest on an amount of about Rs 94 lakh, paid by the home buyers towards part consideration of a flat. The interest has been charged at the rate of 2% above the SBI Highest MCLR from April 2019 till the time the actual possession with OC is handed over to home buyers. While setting aside the MahaRERA order passed by Vijay Satbir Singh in April 2022, the MREAT said that the order passed by the authority, with regard to conditional payment of interest by the promoter, is contrary to the provisions of RERA as well as ratio and dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. The MREAT also observed that the MahaRERA order, granting a grace period of six months to the promoter for payment of interest for delay to the allottee, had no basis. Similarly, pointing to the MahaRERA order in 2022, which allowed the promoter to claim benefit of moratorium, the MREAT judgment stated that the promoter is not entitled to claim benefit of 'moratorium period' for Covid, as possession was promised in March 2019 as per agreement, which was before Covid. Home buyer couple Madhuri and Mahesh Lohia, who were represented by advocate Mithil Sampat at MREAT, had booked the flat in 2014 after paying Rs 75,00,000 towards part consideration and was promised handover initially before December 2016. Though the amount paid for the flat was more than 20% of consideration of the said flat, the promoter failed to execute agreement for sale and the agreement for sale and executed the agreement for a total consideration of Rs 1,55,52,500, only in February 2018 after RERA directed the same, following the filing of a complaint by the allottees with MahaRERA in 2017. The promoter claimed that the project got delayed for reasons, which were beyond his control and claimed as the project is an SRA project, he had to first complete the rehab component, which was affected by refusal of slum dwellers to vacate the project land. The MREAT observed that the reasons of delay submitted by the promoter cannot be construed as force majeure. Referring to the grace period allowed in the payment of interest by MahaRERA in its 2022 order, the MREAT observed that nowhere in the agreement there is mention of any grace period. Nor such grace period is pleaded in the complaint proceedings, MREAT said.
Related Stories
MREAT Orders Cidco to Register as Promoter
Tribunal mandates compliance with MahaRERA for land plot sales.
Page {{currentPage}} of {{pageCount}}
{{#products}}
{{copy}}