Status as on- 01/08/2020

MahaRERA ensuring the rights of homebuyers are safeguarded rejected the developer’s contention that the homebuyers had “acquiesced” and consented to the delay in possession as they continued to pay instalments even after the promised possession date expired.

Introduction

The Rivali Park project, renamed as Wintergreen, was delayed for more than three years. The developer CCI Projects Ltd had sought last mile funding for the project from the Rs 20,000 crore stress fund which was sanctioned for five Mumbai developers last month including CCI Projects Ltd. The developer unilaterally had revised the possession date to December 2019, and further extended it to June 30, 2021. 

This left several homebuyers at unease. Thereafter several homebuyers approached the MahaRERA for seeking a delay penalty for the extended period. 

Issue before the Court

The primary issue before the regulatory authority was to determine the liability for payment of interest by the builder for delay in delivery of possession. The developer contended that they had informed the revised possession dates to the buyers from time to time and the homebuyers have made payments even after the possession dates had passed which reflects their consent to the revised possession dates. 

Further, the developer argued that the possession dates submitted during the registration were the material dates of possession and he is liable to pay interest only if the flats are not constructed on or before the revised dates. But, rejecting all contentions, MahaRERA held the complainants eligible for relief under Section 18 of RERA.

MahaRERA observed that the payments were structured slab-wise leaving complainants helpless after investing big amounts. Therefore, this conduct by the complainants in hope of early possession does not amount to acquiescence. Also, no documents were produced reflecting allottee’s unequivocal consent for condoning the delay. The MahaRERA in three separate orders directed the CCI Projects Ltd to pay interest on delayed period of possession after the ongoing six-month moratorium due to covid-19 crisis is over. 

Conclusion

Thus, in the aforementioned case, MahaRERA has determined Builder’s liability for delay in possession rejecting the fictitious grounds. Protecting the interest of homebuyers, the judgement clearly points out the scope of section 18 as well as homebuyer’s right within. Therefore, by safeguarding the rights of the homebuyers MahaRERA has continued to ensure the faith of the homebuyer in the real estate industry.

Disclaimer- The above article is based on the interpretation of the related laws and judicial pronouncements. The readers are expected to take legal advice before relying on this article. The author can be reached at support@centrik.in or call the IP expert at 8383011629