Mumbai: HC relief for flat buyer after MahaRERA hands an ‘unfair’ order

The project where the complainants had invested and wanted to withdraw from the same

The Bombay High Court recently set aside a 2019 order by a former MahaRERA chairman, on a flat buyer's petition that he and his family were not given a fair hearing. The petitioner had paid towards flats at a housing project in Vasai, had sought refund of the money along with stamp duty and registration charges. The HC order paved the way for the petitioner getting relief from the Adjudicating Officer.

The counsel for the housing regulator sought time to take instructions on the submissions made by the petitioner. He told the court that the petitioner would be heard by MahaRERA. The regulator will now restore the status of the impugned order to a file.

The counsel also admitted that MahaRERA is following the procedure which is contrary to the law and to HC and Supreme Court rulings. He agreed that the regulatory authority must develop a case management system to ensure the 'roznama' or the register of the daily proceedings is available online.

Advocate Nilesh Gala, who represented the complainants before MahaRERA's Adjudicating Officer

Advocate Nilesh Gala, who had represented the petitioner before MahaRERA, said, "There were four connected complaints filed by the allottees in a group against M/s Ekta Parksville Homes Private Limited, at Dongare village, Vasai. The former chairman MahaRERA passed orders without hearing the matter on transfer of jurisdiction application. One such matter was taken in the writ petition by the complainant before the honourable High Court and a statement came to be made by the advocate for Rera authority stating that the orders impugned in the writ petition were passed without hearing the complainant."

Gala said RERA has two mechanisms - allottees can file complaints with the authority or an Adjudicating officer and both can grant reliefs under different sections. "My clients had filed form B Rule 7 seeking refund with compensation and interest hence the matter ought to have been heard by the Adjudicating officer." Gala said the Adjudicating officer has granted refund to the allottee in the other three matters.

The case

The complainants said they booked a 1-BHK flat at Sentosa Park, measuring 355.43 sq feet carpet with a car park, for Rs 36.42 lakh and agreed to pay the money in installments from May 15, 2014. They paid Rs 11 lakh and took a loan of Rs 23.8 lakh from HDFC. They also paid six pre-EMIs totalling Rs 1.12 lakh, which they alleged were not reimbursed as promised. Later, they sought a refund of the money and stamp duty and registration charges on the grounds that the project was delayed.
The matter came up four times before the then MahaRERA chairman, but the roznama was not uploaded.

The developer contended the complainant had agreed to 'take possession' and it has paid pre-EMIs to the extent of Rs 24.6 lakh. A refund will amount to "double jeopardy", said the developer, adding that the project was on the verge of completion. The developer said the project is part of a larger layout owned by HDIL. CIDCO was initially the planning authority. Later, theVasai-Virar Municipal Corporation became the planning authority and HDIL proposed a rental housing scheme on the larger layout and subdivided it.

The builder said sand shortage and alleged non-compliance by HDIL delayed were among the factors that held up the project.

The decision

MahaRERA later transferred to the Adjudicating Officer, who passed an order on February 8 that was received on February 24.

AO Madhav Kulkarni directed the developer to pay within 30 days the complainants R34.81 lakh plus R1,12,795 of pre-EMIs paid by the complainant along with interest of 10.40 percent from the date of payment till the final realisation. The builder has also been asked to pay R50,000 towards mental harassment and R20,000 as cost of the complaint.