MahaRERA directs developer to pay homebuyer over delay in flat possession.
In what seems to be an interesting case, the recent judgement made by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) directed a developer to pay the homebuyer five per cent of the total payment made by the homebuyer towards the flat, who complained of delay in possession.
The case concerns a building named Sheth Midori located in Borivali.
A bunch of home buyers approached MahaRERA against the developer stating that the developer has delayed possession and hence they should be paid an interest on the account of delay. They alleged that the developer was now demanding additional amounts for an alleged increase in the carpet area of the apartments; however, no details of the same had been provided.
During the hearing, the developer stated that he will handover possession of the apartments in accordance with the plan as mentioned in the agreements for sale and that no further charges will be demanded.
Meanwhile, the complainants also requested that the developer be directed to pass the GST input tax credit to them. While most of the complainant asked for interest, one of the complainants Nilesh Prabhulkar, who stated that he had already paid 100 per cent of the amount to the developer in June 2017 asked for five per cent of the total payment he paid to the developer.
While hearing the case, Gautam Chatterjee, who is the chairman of MahaRERA, ordered that in cases where the developer hasn’t handed over possession on time shall pay them interest, as prescribed by the law. And in Prabhulkar’s case, Chatterjee ordered the developer, to refund since the Complainant has paid 100 per cent of the consideration amount to the developer in June 2017. The developer shall refund 5 per cent of the consideration amount to the Complainant, in lieu of the interest payable by the developer for the delay in handing over possession of the said apartment as the payments were collected prematurely.
Home buyers approached MahaRERA against the developer over delay in flat possession. They alleged that the developer was demanding additional amount for an alleged increase in the carpet area of the apartments
You may also like