Observing that flat-purchasers were not responsible for delayed possession, Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Authority (MahaREAT) refused to extend time to the developer of a project at Vakola, Santacruz (E) to hand over possession to them. It also directed the developer to pay Rs.25,000 cost to the flat purchasers.
The direction was passed on an appeal by Satyam Developers against a February 2020 order of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) to pay the allottee interest from January 1, 2018, till actual date of possession. The developer is executing a slum rehabilitation project. Sama Dalvi and her daughter had booked a flat for Rs50 lakh in Swaroop Harmony in June 2010.
An agreement for sale was executed in December 2011 and possession was to be given within three years. Dalvi paid nearly Rs47 lakh. However claiming frustration of contract, Satyam in January 2020 terminated the contract and sent Rs5 lakh as part a refund.
Its appeal said MahaRERA erroneously directed interest from January 1, 2018, as December 31, 2017 was a merely proposed date that was revised to December 31, 2020. It blamed the allottee for inserting words to hand over possession within 30 months after registration. Dalvi’s advocate Godfrey Pimenta said the words were inserted with consent of the parties prior to registration.
MahaREAT members Shriram Jagtap and S S Sandhu, in the July 22 order agreed and said the date “has imparted a definiteness” and Satyam was obligated to deliver possession within 30 months. Pimenta referred to the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision that the promoter had to hand over possession within three years where date is not specified in the agreement. The members said as per this ratio, possession was to be given by December 2014.
But since the registered agreement was not before MahaRERA, it considered December 2017 as the date declared on its website and has “already given enough concession which the promoter did not deserve otherwise.” Satyam said MahaRERA did not consider factors such as delay in occupation certificate and slum-dwellers vacating the plot. “none of them which allegedly caused delay can be attributed to allottees,’’ the members said, adding that the developer cannot get away with termination on “frivolous grounds by merely refunding the paid amount without interest.”
