In a recent order, the MahaRERA granted relief to over 70 homebuyers who had booked flats in the Ruparel Skygreens project in Borivli. The promoter had failed to deliver possession to the allottees, including those who had booked under the subvention scheme and the construction link plan scheme, by the agreed dates as well as by the MahaRERA completion date of December 2021.

MahaRERA Chairman Ajoy Mehta directed the promoter to refund the entire amounts received to some of the allottees with interest, while others would receive refunds without interest. He also instructed the promoter to execute and register cancellation deeds, cancel allotment letters and agreements for sale, and refund the amounts paid by the allottees. Additionally, possession with an occupancy certificate (OC) was to be handed over to certain allottees, along with interest for the delay, depending on the various reliefs sought.

However, the regulatory authority dismissed some complaints due to maintainability and lack of evidence. MahaRERA vacated a previous order that had restrained Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited from taking any coercive action, stating that it had determined the rights of the allottees and fixed the obligations of the promoter. The authority clarified that it did not have the mandate to adjudicate on the tripartite agreement binding the allottee, promoter, and lender, but directed the parties to strictly adhere to the terms of that agreement. The allottees had complained that the finance company had initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

The MahaRERA order acknowledged the complexities involved in executing a real estate project but noted that developers undertaking such projects are well aware of these issues. One of the allottees filed a complaint seeking a refund of amounts paid to the promoter due to the significant delay in handing over possession of a flat booked in 2017. The complainant stated that, according to the agreement, possession was to be delivered on or before December 2021.

The promoter had informed the complainant about the subvention scheme, which stipulated that the liability for payment until the physical possession of the flat would rest with the promoter, thereby ensuring that the complainants would not be burdened with any payment obligations until that time.