MUMBAI: The MahaRERA, in a recent order, has asked the promoter of Lokhandwala-Kataria Construction, promoter of Minerva project at Lower Parel, to pay interest for the delayed possession to a home buyer, who had booked two flats in the project, from January 2022 till the date of offer of possession with OC, at Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) of State Bank of India (SBI) plus 2%, after obtaining of the OC. The promoter was also directed to release the mortgage on the said flats before handing over possession.
The allottee alleged that after booking, it was disclosed that the said flats of the complainant were under mortgage. However, the flats were falsely mentioned as “unsold units” in the disclosure statement of the project by the promoter. Complainant Faisal Rashid had entered into agreements with the promoters for sale for the flats in February 2019 for two flats and paid a consideration of a sum of Rs 1 lakh for each flat.
The complainant stated that the date of possession as per the agreement for sale was December 2020, however, the respondent had failed to handover the possession on the said date. However, the respondent promoter stated that the said claim/reliefs of the complainant for the said flats arises from a loan transaction and not from a sale transaction and that the claim is illegal, fraudulent, unjustified, null and void.
According to MahaRERA, the complainant is seeking reliefs by virtue of the registered agreements for sale. However, the respondent denied the said agreements for sale citing that the same had been executed in violation of the escrow arrangement between the father of the complainant and one of the directors of the respondent’s company and also by fraudulently using a power of attorney. MahaRERA pointed out that though the respondent had cited certain documents such as escrow arrangement/MOU etc, to refute the agreements for sale, but had failed to cite any justified reason as to how the agreements for sale are illegal and fraudulent, or to submit any cogent documentary proof that the complainant had indulged into any fraudulent act.
Although the said agreements for sale were signed in the year 2019, the respondent has challenged the same by filing proceedings before the Bombay High Court only in 2024, which is nearly five years after execution of the said agreements for sale and that too when these complaints were scheduled for hearing on merits. Hence, as far as the present complaints are concerned, the suits filed by the respondent seems an afterthought. MahaRERA also stated that the mortgage deed has been done by the respondent after execution of the agreements for sale. Thereby the respondent promoter has violated the explicit provision of RERA. The authority further said that the respondent has signed the said agreements for sale by accepting the locus of the complainant as an allottee. Hence, after signing the agreements, the respondent cannot make any grievances about the locus standi of the complainant under the guise of the said escrow arrangement/ MOU, etc. The said agreements for sale are still valid and subsisting and the same have not yet been cancelled by any competent court of law, MahaRERA said.
Source Homevior.in
