The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority’s (MahaRERA) Pune bench took help of Google and Wikipedia to define investment and dismiss a case.
The complainant, Chemron Techchem Pvt Ltd, filed a complaint with MahaRERA seeking a refund of the entire amount paid to the developer because of delay in possession. The firm alleged that it bought flats worth Rs 6.82 crore was supposed to get possession from the builder, Marvel Sigma Homes Pvt Ltd, in September 2017. The developer argued that, as per clause 47 of the agreement, the purchaser is an investor, not an allottee. He further stated that he has the good intention of completing the project, but if majority like the complainant withdraw, he has to shut down the project in face irreparable loss.
After going through the case details, the authority said that the complainant was not an allottee as per RERA Act. The adjudications officer while explaining the grounds, defined the word ‘investment’ from Google and Wikipedia in the order. He in his order also relied upon the resolution of board of directors of the complainant’s firm, where it mentioned that the board accorded to acquire the property for investment purpose. The order further stated that RERA the agreement doesn’t mention whom the complainant wanted to accommodate in the flat. However, the agreement does mention that the fact that the ultimate motive was investment.
In the order, the adjudicating officer stated that the complainant has invested the amount to make handsome gains in a short period by selling the flats. “I, therefore, conclude that the complainant comes in the ambit of the definition of the promoter under RERA, consequently the complainant not being an allottee cannot claim relief, the complaint stands dismissed.” said the adjudicating officer.
- Chemron Techchem Pvt Ltd filed a complaint with MahaRERA seeking refund of the entire amount paid to developer owing to delay in possession
- The developer argued that, as per clause 47 of the agreement, the purchaser is an investor
- After going through the details, the authority said that the complainant was not an allottee as per RERA Act