{"id":369,"date":"2021-01-18T13:32:43","date_gmt":"2021-01-18T13:32:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/?p=369"},"modified":"2021-01-18T13:32:45","modified_gmt":"2021-01-18T13:32:45","slug":"possession-date-binding-on-builder-maharashtra-rera-tribunal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/2021\/01\/18\/possession-date-binding-on-builder-maharashtra-rera-tribunal\/","title":{"rendered":"POSSESSION DATE BINDING ON BUILDER – MAHARASHTRA RERA TRIBUNAL"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"LAWYER<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Possession of flat\ndoes not mean fit out possession under RERA Act. Ruling on the sanctity of the \u2018specified\ndate\u2019 of possession, Maharashtra RERA Tribunal asked the builder to refund the\namount paid by the flat buyers along with interest. Two buyers withdrew from\nthe project of the builder three months after the delivery of flats was due.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tribunal held\nthat the promoters and developers of Palava Lakeside in Kalyan failed to\nhandover the possession of flats by 28 February 2018, as mentioned in the agreement\nfor sale and thus the allottees are entitled to withdraw rom the project and\nget refund with interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buyers had filed a\ncomplaint before MahaRERA stating that their agreement with the builder done in\n2014 and builder promised possession for fit-outs by February 2017 and subsequently\nwithin a year the final possession with occupancy certificate but with a grace\nperiod of one year. The project was incomplete when the RERA Act took effect in\nMay 2017, the promoters registered the project under RERA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In May 2018, the\nbuyers decided to withdraw from the project with no possession till that time\nand demanded refund with interest and compensation. The buyers invoked section\n18(1) of RERA which provides for refund with interest and compensation for builder\u2019s\nfailure to provide possession of the flat by the specified date as per the\nagreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In March 2019,\nMahaRERA held that section 18 not attracted to the case as the builder\/ promoter\nas the part occupancy certificate was received for the project in May 2018,\nwhich is way before the complaint filed by the buyers. MahaRERA authority\nstated that once the project is complete, section 18 would not apply and\nadvised the buyers to take possession of the flats when ready.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aggrieved by the\norders of MahaRERA, buyers preferred appeal before the appellate tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On January 12, 2021,\ntribunal held that the MahaRERA order is not sustainable under the given\nprovisions of RERA Act. Section 18 of RERA is absolute on the point of \u2018specified\ndate\u2019 mentioned in the agreement for giving possession and not on any grace\nperiod mentioned n the agreement, said the tribunal. Also, \u2018Possession as\ncontemplated under section 18 of RERA Act is not fit out possession\u2019, tribunal explained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 19(x) of RERA\nAct mandates offering physical possession with OC to the buyer, who is\nobligated to take the delivery within two months. \u2018Once it is evident that the builder\/\npromoter failed to provide possession by the specified date as mentioned in the\nagreement, promoters are not entitled for extension\u2019, tribunal iterated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tribunal directed the builder\/ promoter to refund the amounts paid by the buyers with interest of 2% more than the current prevailing SBI rates. The buyer also claimed Rs. 25 Lakhs as compensation which tribunal did not grant but gave them the liberty to file an independent petition for compensation before the adjudicating officer of MahaRERA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Possession of flat does not mean fit out possession under RERA Act. Ruling on the sanctity of the \u2018specified date\u2019 of possession, Maharashtra RERA Tribunal asked the builder to refund the amount paid by the flat buyers along with interest. Two buyers withdrew from the project of the builder three months after the delivery ofRead more about POSSESSION DATE BINDING ON BUILDER – MAHARASHTRA RERA TRIBUNAL<\/span>[…]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ethicallegal"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=369"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":374,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/369\/revisions\/374"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ethicallegal.in\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}