MUMBAI: The Maharashtra Real Estate Tribunal (MREAT) modified a MahaRERA order of 2021, which had denied interest from 2014, citing that RERA Act 2016 came into force in 2017, and granted the home buyer interest from January 2014 till date of offer of possession with OC on the actual amount paid by the home buyer at SBI MCLR rates plus 2% interest.
The MREAT said that the reason assigned by the Authority is contrary to the provisions of Section 18 of RERA Act 2016 and it defeats the very object of RERA Act 2016. The Tribunal observed that Section 18 of RERA Act spells out the consequences if promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment either in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or to complete the project by the date specified on account of discontinuance of his business, either on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, the allottee holds unqualified right to seek interest on the amount paid by him at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf.
Home buyer Vaishali Katkar had booked for a consideration of Rs 24 lakh in a redevelopment project of SD Bhalerao Construction at Nehru Nagar, Kurla, and an agreement for sale was registered in December 2011. According to Katkar, who was represented by Advocate Anil D Souza, the developer had committed to hand over the possession of the subject flat to the allottee on or before December 31, 2013. The allottee paid an amount of Rs 22,50,000 to the developer towards part consideration of the flat. However, the developer has not handed over possession of the flat to the home buyer till date.
According to the complainant, the developer revised the plan and now no flat measuring of the similar area purchased by the allottee is available in the project. Therefore, the developer asked the allottee to pay additional money. The developer contended that a development agreement came to be executed between developer and respondent society in April 2010 and the complainant booked a flat in the month of June 2010. The developer claimed that the complainant was apprised about the fact that there shall be revision in the floor plan and lay out plan approved by the competent authority and the complainant had agreed upon the revised area as well as revised consideration amount and to execute a supplementary agreement for sale. However, the home buyer did not come forward to execute the supplementary agreement for sale and pay revised consideration amount, the developer claimed. The respondent also contended that the project got delayed due to change in competent authority from MCGM to Mhada.
Source Homevior.in
