MahaRERA penalised housing society and builder for violating the Act.

By Abhay Shah, Realty Quarter

A housing society in Vidyavihar, which possessed the land and performed a redevelopment contract with a builder in 2011 but ended the deal, last February, is a co-promoter of the project under the real estate regulatory act and accountable to customers who booked free-sale unit flats, MahaRera retained in a substantial decision.

The organization also penalized the housing society and Rs 15 lakh to the builder for breach of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. After the builder left last year, the society had conducted self-development. In the project, more than 10 individuals had booked free-sale apartments valued about Rs 1 crore and had been waiting for ownership since September 2017.

MahaRera instructed the New Sangeeta Coop Housing Society Ltd in Vidyavihar (E) to finish the construction of a suggested 11-storeyed building and hand over ownership after three apartment buyers lodged a complaint against the builder Pinkesh Jain and the society last year.

The organization instructed the society to pay MahaRera Rs15 lakh as a penalty for breach of Section 15 of the Act. The section stipulates that previous consent of two-thirds of apartment buyers and the authority’s written consent are compulsory prior to the transfer of development rights.

Under Rera, the project was registered. Valdariya Constructions’ builder Jain had ended his contract with the society on February 2018, which he approved and begun self-development.

“The termination should have been performed with Maha-Rera’s authorization,” said Vijay Satbir Singh’s order issued on August 6, adding, “The freedoms of allottees who put in hard-earned money … need to be secured.”

Lawyer Nilesh Gala, who appeared for the complainants Kaushal Haria, Girish Chheda and Velbai Haria, also sought compensation instructions at 18% for late ownership from May 2016.

Their situation was that in May 2016 they had booked apartments and registered sales agreements and should be inducted as members of the society.

They said the agreements had been executed with the builder, who was liable to hand over possession by September 30th, 2017, after which he was liable to pay Rs 6,000 penalty for the delay in possession of each day.

Advocate Pawan Pandey, arguing for the society, opposed relief. His plea was Section 18, which stipulates that the builder must return amounts received from each buyer as he discontinued as a promoter and that “society cannot be included as a promoter.”

He depended on an HC order that could not be a co-promoter for the society. Maha-Rera held that as the society made an agreement with the builder to construct a new building by demolishing the current one and selling extra apartments, it fell within the category of a ‘promoter’. It said that before the Act went into force, the HC order was of a project; now all its regulations are relevant.

Source: Times of India