MREAT orders Runwal Greens to reimburse homebuyers for late possession

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has overturned a MahaRERA ruling from 2020 and ordered the promoter of Runwal Greens to pay interest on the homebuyers down payment for two years from 2016 to 2018 as well as pay a fine of Rs 20,000 for the delay in taking possession of the property.

In order to preserve his ability to make an interest claim the MREAT has said that an allottee is neither needed nor expected to record that he accepted the altered dates of ownership. Even after receiving notice regarding the changed date of possession without objection, the house buyer's right cannot be overturned. The promoter is not obligated to pay interest to the plaintiff on account of the delay in turning over the property according to a ruling made in 2020 by Gautam Chatterjee, the then-MaharERA chairman.

Ashley Serrao, a resident of Nahur and his father made a reservation for a residence in Mulund's Runwal Greens in January 2012 for a sum of Rs 1.38 crore. They made a partial payment of around Rs 28 lakh. The project's promoter promised to turn it over by December 2015 at the latest. However, the promoter announced his inability to fulfil his duty due to force majeure and other factors outside of his control in January 2016 and again in February 2017.

The promoter requested that Serrao take ownership of the apartment in July 2018. The promoter wanted further funds in July 2018 after claiming that the apartment's carpet area had grown by 127 feet. The house buyer subsequently complained to MahaRERA. The promoter argued that after the complainant was given the opportunity to take possession of the apartment the complaint was made. They claimed that Serrao did not object and that they had informed them of the amended date of possession and provided a refund if they did not like it.

The allottee made no objections to the new date of possession does not automatically mean that he has given up trying to collect interest for the delay in possession. The learned authority misapplied Section 18 of the RERA Act's provisions and came to the incorrect conclusion that it only applies if the project is unfinished or the promoter is unable to transfer possession and that once the project is finished and transferred to the homebuyer, the provisions no longer apply. Therefore, the learned authority's decision to deny interest relief is therefore unjustified.

Next (Park Hotels plans to float Rs 1,500 crore-IPO in September 2023)

MREAT orders Runwal Greens to reimburse homebuyers for late possession

This Month

Overview

Explore

Join Us