The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has set aside an order passed by MahaRERA in 2020 and has directed the promoter to pay interest on the amount paid by the home buyers with interest for two years – from 2016 to 2018 – and also pay a cost of Rs 20,000 for delayed possession.
The MREAT has stated that an allottee is neither required nor expected to record that he accepted revised dates of possession without prejudice to his right to claim interest. The home buyer’s right cannot be defeated even after receipt of information about the revised date of possession without protest. The then MahaRERA chairman, Gautam Chatterjee, had in 2020 held that the promoter is not liable to pay interest to the complainant on account of delay in handing over the flat.
Nahur resident Ashley Serrao, along with his father, had booked a flat in Runwal Greens, Mulund, for a consideration of Rs 1.38 crore in January 2012. They paid a part consideration of about Rs 28 lakh. The promoter had committed to hand over the project on or before December 2015. However, in January 2016 and later in February 2017, the promoter expressed his inability to comply with his obligation on account of force majeure, and reasons beyond his control.
In July 2018, the promoter asked Serrao to take possession of the flat. The promoter issued another letter in July 2018 stating that the carpet area of the flat had increased by 127 feet and demanded an additional amount for the same. Subsequently, the homebuyer filed a complaint before MahaRERA. The promoter contended that the complainant was offered possession of the flat and the complaint was filed after that. They said that Serrao did not raise any protest and were apprised by them about the revised date of possession and offered a refund if the revised dates were not acceptable to them.
Merely because the allottee did not raise any objection to the revised date of possession does not mean that he has abandoned his claim for interest for delayed possession. The learned authority has failed to ensemble the provisions of Section 18 of the RERA Act and arrived at a wrong conclusion that it will apply only if the project is incomplete or the promoter is unable to give possession and once the project is completed and given to the homebuyer the said provisions cease to apply. Therefore, the learned authority is not justified in not granting relief of interest. The complainant was represented by advocate Anil Dsouza.
