MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE APPELLATETRIBUNAL UNDER RERA Act

Bharat Raichand Shah

8, Harish Terrace, R.A.K. Road,

Wadala, N4umbai 400 031.

Runwal ConstructionsRunwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5th Floor,Off. Eastern Express Highway,Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal,Sion, Mumbai 400 022.

1. Parag Chandrakant Sawant &2. Mrs. Aditi Parag Sawant,

1, Guru Krlpa Trimurti Road,

Mulund (West),

Ivlumbai 400 080.

vls

Runwal ConstructionsRunwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5tn Floor,Off. Eastern Express Highway,0pp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal,Sion, lvlumbai 400 022.

No.ATOO60000OOO10474

. Appellant/s

No.ATOO6OOOO0O000301

.. Appellant/s

..Respondent/s

..Respondent/s

(\

Nitin KorgaonkarB/37, Kanchankrupa,

P.K. Road, Mulund (West),

Mumbai 400 080.

Runwal ConstructionsRunwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5rh Floor,Off. Eastern Express Highway,Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signai,Sion, Mumbai 400 022.

Satish lvlaruti ShirsekarYogi Hills, Flat No. 105,

Green Acres, Off. Balrajeshwai' Road,Mulund (n/est), Mumbai 400 080.

v/s.Runwal ConstructionsRunwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5th Floor,Off. Eastern Express Highway,Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal,Sion, Mumbai 400 022.

Garfield Deepak Dsouza

B- 11, Shrenik, Ashok NagarNahur Road, Nr. Nirmal Life StyleMulund (W), N4umbai 400 080

v/s.Runwal InfinityRunwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5th Floor,Off. Eastern Express Highway,Opp. Slon Chunabhatti Signal,Sion, lvlumbai 400 022.

No.ATOO5000OOO0OO317

Appellant/s

..Respondent/s

No.ATO060000OOO00281

. Appellanti s

Respondent/s

No.AT0060000OOOOo297

.. Appellant/s

N- . Respondent/s

-)-

Mr. T.A. lames Pereira

Sudhir Tower, B-402,S.N. Road,

I,4ulund (West),Mumbai 400 080.

v/s'Sandeep RunwalRunwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5th Floor,Off. Eastern Express Highway,Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal,Sion, Mumbai 400 022.

Pravir Karmokar

5/6 Flat No. 401,Manish Tower,

Manish Nagar, 4 Bungalows,

l.P. Road, Andheri (West),

Mumbai 400 053.

v/s.Runwal ConstructionsRunwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5s Floor,Off . Eastern Express Highway,Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal,Sion, Mumbai 400 022.

Neha Arvind Nadkarni &Arvind Sadanand Nadkarni

604, Bansuri Building,

Lokpuram, Pokhran-2,

Gladys Alvares Road,

Thane 400 610.

V/s.Sandeep RunwalRunwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5th Floor,Off. Eastern Express Highway,Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal,Sion. Mumbai 400 022.

N

\\

No.AT0060OOOOOOOO309

.. Appellant/s

Respondent/s

No.ATO060000000O0289

. Appella nt/s

..Respondent/s

No.ATOO6OOOOOO00O291

Appellant/s

..Respondent/s

-4-

Srinivasan SundaresanSathish Kumar &Mr. Krishna IyerA-31 209, Vasundhara

Lok Rachana CHSL, GGS Road,Amar Nagar, t\4ulund (West),Mumbai 400 082.

Yls

Runwal ConstructionsRunwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5th Floor,Off. Eastern Express Highway,Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal,Sion, Mumbai 400 022.

1. Nilesh Chindarkar2. Prachi Chindarkar

605, OPAL,

Nirmal Lifestyle,

L.B.S.Road, Mulund (West)Mumbai 400 080.

Y/s.

Runwal ConstructionsRunwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5th Floor,Off. Eastern Express Highway,Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal,Sion, Mumbai 400 022.

No.4T0060000O0000280

.. Appellant/s

..Respondent/s

No,ATO06000000000287

.. Appellant/s

t\..Respondent/s

Samira Sultana Halim Mohammed21 27 4 I 3553, Tagore Nagar,Vikhroli (East),

It4umbai 400 083.

V/s'Sandeep RunwalRunwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5th Floor,Off. Eastern Express Highway,Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Signal,Slon, Mumbai 400 022.

Nitin Shantilal JainFlat No. 341/13, 3'd floor,Lila Nowas, Opp. Shanti Near Lakhma,Chandavarkar Road,Matunga (East), lvlumbai 400 019.

Sandeep RunwalRunwal Constructions, Runwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5th Floor,Off. Eastern Express Highway,Opp. Sion Chuna bhatti Signal,Sion, Mumbai 400 022.

Sudhir Ray

H-199 l4ulund Darshan

Mulund Colony,

Ivlumbai 400 082.

V/S.Runwal ConstructionsRunwal Group,Runwal & Omkar Esquare, 5 'Floor,Off. Eastern Express Highway,Opp. Sion Ch unabhatti Signal,Sion, Mumbai 400 022.

No.ATO060000OOO0O279

Appellant/s

..Respondent/s

No.AT0O600O000O0O29O

. Appellant/s

.. Respondent/s

No.ATO06000OOO01O556

. Appellant/s

(

..Respondent/s

Adv. Thakkar and Ka naniAT006000000010474.

-6-

in all the matters except Appeal No

-:oRAL JUDGM ENT:-

Heard finally.

1. Allottees in group of appeals feel dismayed by order of Ld.Chairperson, MahaRERA, Mumbai dated April 2, 2018 and May 21,2018. The Appeals are taken together as common ground ofagitation is projected. The other appeals of Allottees only withReceipt, Appeals of Allottees and promoters whose Agreements werecancelled by promoter are de-taqged.

2. The Allottees had entered into Agreement in respect of purchase ofFlats in Respondent / Promotert project'Runwal Infinity, situated atVillage Nahur, Mulund, Mumbai.

3. The common grievance of Allottees was though the project started in2006, Agreements were entered in 2006, ZO07. The possession datewas 2008, 2009 (Halim Mohd. Iqbal - possession dated was31.12.2010), however, the promoter / Respondent failed to handover possession in stipulated time uptc December, 2009 or extendedperiod in the case of Sameera Halim Mohd. (possession date was31.12.2010). t

t.\

Smt. Deepali Thakor i/b Shri Sachin Karia, Advocate for Allottee in theAppeal No. AT006000000010474.

Shri lames Pereira in Appeal No. AT006000000000309 in person.

Smt. Garima Agarwal for Respondent M/s. Runwal Constructions in atlthe Appeals.

CORAI4 :Hon,bte Shri K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.Heard on : 31st October. 2018

Dictated/pronounced on : 1* November, 2018Transcribed on : 1( November, 2018

-7-

Another grievance was the date of completing project quoted by theRespondent is far off to reason. The Respondent / Promoter be

directed to pay interest / compensation for delayed possession.

4. The parties to the Appeal and their Advocates were given sufficienttime to resolve the controversy amicably. Certain modalities were

even suggested, however, no settlement reached and hence theAppeals are heard on merits.

5. The grievance of the Appellant is the Ld. Chairperson, lYahaRERA,

Mumbai erred in not appreciating the Judgement passed by Division

Bench of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition 2737 of 2017 dated 6th

December, 2017. The Ld. Authority erred in inferring that workcannot be carried out due to status quo order lssued by Hon'ble

Bombay High Couft. The Ld. Authority erred in not appreciating thatsuch status quo was restricted to one Building No.5 (A-1) and thattoo for a limited area. The Ld. Chairperson erred in concluding thatdelay in handing over possession cannot be ascertained. The importof Section 18 of RERA which contemplate 'Promoter to pay interestfor every month of delay till handing over possession to the Allotteesat prescribed rate from agreed date of possession till actual date ofhanding over possession to the Allottees,' is ignored. The Ld.

Chairperson erred in not appreciating that the delay in obtainingrequisite permissions cannot be said to be a mitigating circumstanceso as to enable the Promoter to unilaterally extend the date ofpossession.

6. The relevant observation in the two orders of the Ld. Chairperson in

the orders under challenge are as under :

Para 6 in order dated Aoril 2, 2018 in orouD mattersreads as under:

The reasonable time period which can be allowed to theRespondent for completion of the poect in accordance

1\

-8-

with Rule 4 of Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and

Developnrent) (Registration of Real Estate Projeds,registration of Real estate Agents, Rates of Interest ancl

Disclosures on Website) Rules, 2017, can only be

established after the miiigating circumstances get over

and the proiect work Tecommences. At pi-esenl.i theproject work cannoi, L)c carrieci out due to the stop work

notice issued by the BI{C, pendency of the receipt ofthe environmental clearance and the status-quo Order

issued by the lionble Bombay High Cout.Consequenth/, the tiflre per'iod which can be attributedto the Respondent for ileiay in handing over pos.sessior)

can neither be ascertained nor the date of handinq ove!-

possession can be Cirterrnined, at this staqe.

Para 3 in ordei!at!q i:l-riy 21..2018

In order dated Aprll l, ZC18 passed by NlahaRERA in

various complaints filed against the said project, this

Authority has already held that the reasonable timeperiod which ailn he a'llcii\-cd to the Respolclenr f.Ycompletion of th: c:ole,-i in d.(:ordance w,th Rriie', ofMaharashtra Real Litsi(i{ P.(:Sr'lation and Developme,-rt )

(Registi-ation of R(:al EsiaLc Pn)jefts, t(eErstration oiReal Estate Agents, Rates of irlrerest and Disclosures on

Website) Rules, 20.1i , i:an only Lre established alier the

mitigating circurnstiril(es get over and the project worl.l

recommences. At present, the project work cannot be

carried out due to the stop work notice issued by the

BMC, pendency of the receipt of the environmental

clearance and the status-quo Order issued by theHon'ble Bombay High Couft. Consequently, the time

period which can be attributed to the Respondent for

delay in handing over possession .can neither be

asceftained nor the d:rte of handing over possesslon

can be determinecl, tl- this stage.hN

-9-

7. Shri Kanani and Shri Thakkar for the Allottees further elaborated

the profits earned and likely to be earned by the Promoter as the

original project was of 490 flats while the present project figure is

1003 flats. Each of the Allottee has paid more than 200/o of the

amount at the time of booking. Private Forest was declared in 2006

still the Promoter had gumption to enter into Agreements. There

was no stay against the Promoter from carrying on construction as

Honble Supreme Court on 25th lanuary, 2010 granted permission

to go on with the construction. Construction of Wings (Building 81)

is 90% and Wings (Building 82) is 80%.

8. The Promoter has by subsequent detalls and communication fixed

the date of possession for Building B1 and 82 to be July 2024.

9. The Allottees summarized their case as under

1) The Allottees, without prejudice to their rights suggested to

release Rs.750/- per sq. feet at carpet area at the time ofpossession. This is not agreed by Appellant Mr. Sundaresan

(Appeal No. AT006000000000280 and Bharat Shah (Appeal no.

AT006000000010474).

2) The maximum period should be extended to 12 months tocomplete the building and giving possession.

3) The Allottees / Appellant are very much keen to continue with theproiect and their earnest desire is to have peaceful possession ofthe booked flats in a shortest time.

4) The Promoter shall execute regular Agreement for Sale for those

Allottees with only Allotment Letter.

8) Mr. Jagtiani for the Promoter says there is no perversity in the order

of the Ld. Chairperson. The mitigating circumstances were such that

no time for handing over possession could be fixed. There was

dispute with Government and the intervening circumstances were

4\

beyond the control of the promoter. The date of possessionmentioned in Agreement was sLJbject to a Caveat, a remecly todemand refund was available to Allottee. Today also, promoter isready to refund the amount with interest at 10.050/o per annum. Hesays, contractual framework and rights and liabilities should not bedecided divorce the contract. For nine years, there was embargo titl17th January, 2015 and potentiai o1F the property was totally locked.Promoter too has availed loan. 229 Flats are sold, 115 Flatpurchasers have singed escaiation ,etteis.

e) On perusal of say on behail- of th.r prornoter in these riatters, itemerges that orr lBth fvlay, 2006, l"lunicipal Corporation of Gri.,ater.Mumbai (MCGM) issued rtop work notices on 25th May, 2006,Tahsildar, Kurla recorded Mutation Enlry 777 as .private

Forest,.Aggrieved by declaration of said land to be a ,prrvate Forest,,Runwal flled Writ Petition Nc. 1578 cf 2006 in Hon,bte High Court ofMurnbai challenging the first sl.op work notice and Governl.nentNotification. The Hon'bte tligtr Couft on 25tr, July, .2C06 passedinterim order permittinal purrural to commencei/continLle Lheconstruction on . the gaid itnil sub.lect to outcome of the WritPetition. MCGM withcirer,,,, frrst stop \rork notice f,om 13thSeptember, 2006, Runvval obtained Environmentai clearance fordevelopment of the said property on 16th November, 2006. TheWrit Petition No. 1578 of 2C06 was dismissed on 24th March, 2008.Aggrieved by said order, Runwal filed Special Leave petition No.11059 of 2008 before Hon'ble Suprenie Coud of India. The Hon,bleSupreme Court pass3d interim orrjer in the said SLp on 25.01.2010permitting Runwal to proceed with construction on the said iandsubject to decision cf t"1inistry of Environment & Forest (MoEF). On30th January,2014, Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed and set asidethe order dated 24th March 2008 of the Hon,ble HiEh Court ofBombay. Runwal was prosecuting with Environmental Agencies inrespect of MoEF Notification. Recently, on 22,d January, 201g,MCGM issued one more stop work notice on the ground that theproject did not have a valid Environment clearance.

ryt\

- 11-

10) While dealing with the Appeals in the light of above background oF

events, one should not be oblivious to the spirit of ,The Real Estate(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).'

11) As per the provisions of Rule 4 of the lvlaharashtra Real Estate(Regulation and Development) (Registration of Real EstateProjects, Registration of Real Estate Agents, Rates of Interest andDisclosures on Website) Rules, 2017 the revised date ofpossession for an ongoing project has to be commensurate withthe extent of balance development.

There should not be contest to the observations but at the sametime other directions of Honble Lordships and conclusions drawnneeds to be harmoniously construed.

Paras 262 & 263 (Neelkamal Judoement) are as under

"As far as interest under Section 18(1Xb) is concerned, itwas submitted that under Section 8 the Authority appointsfacilitator / agency for carrying out remaining developmentworks. After ouster of the promoter, he cannot be held

\

Preamble of RERA reads as thus :

An Act to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authorjty forregulation and promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure saleof ploe apartment or building, as the case may bq or sa/e of realestate project, in an efllcient and transparent manner and to protectthe interest of consumers in the real estate sector and to establishan adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal and also toestablish the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions,directions or orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and theadjudicating officer and for matters connected therewith orincidental thereto;

12) The Ld. Counsel for Promoter relied on the Division BenchJudgement of Neelkamal and in particular Paras 89, 96,244, 304and 308.

-t2-

responsible on account of delay in handing over possessionby the facilitator/ agency so appointed by the Authority. Itwas contended that it is quite possible that the amount of70% deposited under Section 4(2X1XD) may have beenutilized by the promoter for carrying out construction. Inthat event, it will be extremely harsh and unreasonable todirect the promoter to pay lnterest till handing overpossession after his ouster. The provisions of Section18(1Xb) are, therefore violative of Artictes 14, 19(1Xg) ofthe Constitution of India. I do not find any merit in thissubmission. The promoter is liable to pay interest onaccount of suspension or revocation of the registrationunder the Act or for any other reason. The basicpresumption is that the promoter was unable to completethe constructlon despite prescribing the time period underSection a(2)(1)(C). The amounr of 70o/o is already crediteCin a dedicated bank account under Section a(2)(1)(D). Thepromoter has retained 30% paid by the allottee to him.Thus the allottee has parted with entire consideration forpurchasing the apanment and still he is not givenpossession. The allotee cannot be said to be actinggratuitously. The promoter enjoying the benefit is boundto make compensation to the allottee. In other wordsthough it is a case of unjust enrichment on the part of thepromoter, still he is not liable to compensate the allotteeby paying interest on the arncunt retained by him. in viewthereof, it cannot be said that Section 18(1Xb) is violativeof Articles 1a and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. Italso cannot be said to be a penal provision."

"In so far as Section 38 is r:oncerned, the Authority isempowered to impose penalty or interest in respect ofcontravention of cbligations cast upon the promoter /allottees under the Act or the RLrles and the Regulationsmade thereunder. Th s, the Authority can also imposepenalty or interest on the ailoh_ees for contravention of the

41'

Para 263 (Neelkanraludgmelt) reads as under.j

obligations case upon them. At the same time, theAuthority can impose penalty or interest on the promoteron account of contravention of obligations cast upon him.The legislation has done balancing of rights and liabilitiesof the promoters and allottees. While exercising thepower, the Authority is guided by the principles of naturaljustice. It, therefore, cannot be said that Section 38violates Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution ofIndia."

Para 119 (Neelkamal Judqment) reads as under:

"Under the provisions of Section 18, the delay in handingover the possession would be counted from the datementioned in the agreement for sale entered into by thepromoter and the allottee prior to its registration underRERA. Under the provisions of RERA, the promoter isgiven a facility to revise the date of completion of projectand declare the same under Section 4. The RERA does notcontemplate rewriting of contract between the flatpurchaser and the promoter. The promoter would tenderan application for registration with the necessarypreparations and requirements in law. While the proposalis submitted, the promoter is supposed to be conscious ofthe consequences of getting the project registered underRERA. Having sufflcient experience in the open market,the promoter is expected to have a fair assessment of thetime required for completing the project. After completinqall the formalities, the promoter submits an application forregistration and prescribes a date of completion of project.It was submjtted that interest be made payable from thedate of registration of the project under RERA and notfrom the time-line consequent to execution of privateagreement for sale entered between a promoter and a

allottee. It was submitted that retrospective effect of law,having adverse effect on the contractual rights of the

4\

-L4-

parties, is unwarranted, illegal and highly arbitrary innature."

"We have already discussed that above stated provisions ofthe RERA are not retrospective in nature. They may tosome extent be having a retroactive or quasi retroactive

effect but then on that ground the valldity of the provisions

of RERA cannot be challenged. The Parliament is

competent enough to legislate law having retrospective orretroactive effect. A law can be even framed to affectsubsisting / existing contractual rights betvveen the partaes

in the larger public interest. We do not have any doubt in

our mind that the RERA has been framed in the largerpublic interest after a thorough study and dlscussion made

at the highest level by the Standing Comrnittee and Select

Committee, which submitted its detailed reports. As

regards Article 19(1Xg) it is settled principles that the rightconferred by sub-clause (g) of Article 19 is expressed io

general language and if there had been no qualifyingprovisions like clause (6) the right so conferred would have

been an absolute one."

"The another plea raised is as to why a promoter shall pay

lnterest for the past contractual rights, ln case of failure tocomplete the project after registration under RERA, till thepossession is handed over. Under the scheme of the RERA

it is clear by now that a promoter has to self assess anddeclare time perioC during which he would complete theproject. But in case, inspite of making genuine efforts, a

promoter fails to complete the project, then the concerned

\

Para 122 (Neelkama.l ludglneatlrcadS !5 Llnder:

Para 126 (Neelkamal lijdoment) reads as lndeti

_ 15_

authorities, adjudicators, forums, tribunals would certainlylook into genuine cases and mould thelr reliefs accordingly.We do not find that on that count the provisions of SectionlB(1Xa) are to be declared as contrary and vlolative ofArticles 14 and 19(1Xg). Considering the scheme of theRERA and the provisions of Section 18(1Xb), we are of theview that the same are not contrary to Articles 14 and

19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The provisions cannot bestruck down on the ground of challenge that its operationis retroactive in nature. Neither the provisions of Section18(1Xa) and (b) violate Article 20 of the Constitution. Thepayment of interest under Section 18 is compensatory innature [Abati Bezbaruah vs. Director General, GeologicalSurvey of India - (2003) 3 SCC 148 (para 18) and Alok

Shanker Pandey vs. UOI - (2007) 3 SCC 545 (para 9) lThe provisions of Section 18 must be read with

Sections 77 and 72. The adjudicator would consider eachcase on its merits and unless such cases emerge anddecisions are taken by the authority, it would not be

appropriate at this staff to hypothetically consider a

situation and decide constitutional validlty of statutoryprovisions."

13) In Suit no.962174 pending before Hon'ble High Court, on February14,2018 Runwal were restrained from creating third party interest inrespect of an area of L4,343.76 sq.ft. in A-1 Building. On 2nd luly,2018, based on Minutes of Order, same area was directed to bemaintained and an undertaking was given by Runwal not to transfer,alienate. deal with, dispose of or encumber such area of 14,306 sq.ft,in A-1 Bldg.

14) Thus, the stay or its impact would not generate any momentum infavour of the Promoter to take shelter and scaffolding to protract thematter of handing over possession. The mitigating circumstancesreferred by Shri Jagtiani highlighted hereinbefore, were not of suchgrave quality which has inhibited or stalled complete constructionactivities of the Promoter. The Government of India clarification in

\

-16-

respect of Environmental Clearance indicated in Notification dated21s August, 2013 Paragraph 2 & 3 thereof reads as under:

"2. And whereas the above said notification wasfufther amended vide notification number S,O. 356(E),dated the 4th May, 1994, Clause (c) of sub-paragraph(III) of paragraph (2) of the said notification providesthat -

"the clearance granted shall be valid for a period offive years from commencement of the construction oroperatjon".

This also need not be ignored

15) Thus, the Promoter cannot be fufther permitted to put a blame to theEnvironmental Clearance. Even if all the constraints flashed byPromoter are positively conside!.ed but the issue that tr:ggers here isthere was adequate time for tne Prornoter to complete the project ingiven schedule. There should not be a mlsconc_eption that unilateralterms in Agreement dehors the starutory obligations will prevail. Infact, they are contra!'y to the statutory Scheme. The preambie

referred to above, Rule 4 indicated above, provides for a revised dareof possession for an ongoing project, commensurate with extent ofbalance development. As indicated hereinbefore, Building B-2 iscomplete by 800/o and Building B-1 by 90%. in the situation, it isbeyond comprehension to extend fime to the Promoter to meet thedreams of flat purchases hy July 2024. Tirere shoulC bereasonableness on both the sides lhe mattei" needs to be lookedwith larger picture from a wider pcr-rDective to the benefit of both thestakeholders. The Allottees should nct be tormented viciously.

{tt

3. And rvhereas the intent of the Central governmenthas been and has always been that the validity of rheenvironmental clearance is flve years "foi.,,commencement of the construction or operation andnot that the environment clearance is only for five yeare"from" the commencenrent of construction or operation.

-17-

16) The dialogue of resolution of controversy by providing escalation, asstated earlier has failed. Escalation letters signed by three Allottees(4T006000000000291, AT006000000000290 andAT006000000000281) will not titt the picture from tiabitity of thePromoter to pay interest for delayed possession.

17) The Allottees have stated in the light of stage of the construction, thePromoter should be directed to hand over possession within a periodof 12 months. However, I propose it should be 18 months. So far asBldg. 'C'is concerned, the reasonable period could be 30 months.However, considering the facts as pointed by Shri Jagtiani, and givingconcession, to strike balance between the parties, I propose to awardinterest in favour of Allottees after orders in the S.L.p. dated 30thJanuary. 2014. The Promoter shall release interest in favour of theAlloftees / Appellants effective from 1s February, 2014. This will be intune with Scheme of RERA Preamble and ludgement in Neelkamal.

18) Shri Jagtiani has also referred to the judgement of Hon,ble SupremeCourt reported in (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 776 in the matterof Hansa V. Gandhi Versus Deep Shankar Roy and Ors. In the saidJudgement, Letter of Intent was issued in favour of Appellant /Plaintiff therein and suit for specific performance was filed. TheLetter of Intent provided, 'only upon payment of purchase prlce, thedeveloper and the purchaser were to enter into an Agreement withregard to sale of flats.' However, in this context, Hon'ble SupremeCourt directed that no specific performance of one flat could begranted, however, allowed of Plaintiff's money with 9olo p€r 0noum.Then the Letter of Cancellation was written by developer to thepurchaser. In the instant case, for few of the Appellants, AllotmentLetters are lssued. Almost all the stipulations are briefly identifiedexcept date of handing over possession. That will not change thescenario as it should be in consonance to the prevailing statute'Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion ofConstruction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA)'which mandates specification of date of possession. Impact of MOFA

is not taken away as could be seen in Sectlon 88 of RERA. Thus,

\

-18-

non-mention of date of possession in the Allotment Letter will not bedetrimental to such Allottees.

19) Sec, 2(c) of RERA deals with Agreement for Sale ,ieans anagreement entered into between the promoter and the Allottee. It isonly the difference of nomenclature, one may brand it as letter ofallotment or one may brand it as an Agreement or one may brand itas provisional agreement or define it as an acceptance letter.However, it will not dilute the terms setued bet\^/een the parties of apurchaser, seller of property and price agreed upon in schedule, anddetails of the property.

20) Sec. 2(d) of RERA contemplates definition of .allottee,which inctudes

in relation to the real estate project allotted or sold whether asfreehold or leasehold or otherwise transferred by promoter andincludes the persons who subsequently acquires the said allotment.Broadly speaking the term ,allottee,, put in juxtaposition with theletter of allotment meets the requirement of Agreement as indicatedin Sec. 2(c) of RERA. It is not the case of promoter that Letter ofAllotment does not meet required details. On the contrary, thePromoter has not raised objection to contractual relations, noragitated that complaints sans consideraUon for want of regularAgreement for Sale.

21) The Allottees, alleged that there is escalation in prices in the vjcinity,also in the project of the promoter and hence promoter wants toavoid compliance. I do not u.'ish to advert to this issue. however, itis crystal clear that the Altottees / Appellants want to continue withthe project. At the same time, the promoter is also ready to refundthe amount received with interest @10.05% p.a. if the Allottee wantsto withdraw. This aspect now becomes academic.

22) One should not be oblivious to the spirit of RERA - the preamble. Italso needs to be considered that in the judgement of Neelkamal inPara 109, it is observed "The Authority shall examine each case incompelling circumstances and reasons for a promoter in failing tocomplete the project. The Authority / Tribunal can look into individualcases and mould their reliefs accordingly.,,

\

-19-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Appeals being No. AT006000000010474. AT006000000000301,AT006000000000317, AT006000000000281, AT006000000000297,AT006000000000309, AT006000000000289, AT006000000000291,AT006000000000280, AT006000000000287, AT006000000000279,AT006000000000290, AT006000000010556 of the Atlonees areallowed.

2. The Promoter / Respondent to pay interest to the Allottees@ 10.050/o p.a. effective from 1$ February, Z0l4 til handing overactual possession.

3. The Promoter / Respondent to complete Building 81 and 82 in theregistered project within 18 months from order. Failure, to followaction and consequences in terms of Section 7 of RERA.

4. The Promoter / Respondent to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to Appellant /Allottee.

5. The operation of order is stayed upto 5th December, 2018

Dictated and pronounced in open Couft today. N/Place:Dated

lvlumbai1st November, 2018

(K. U. CHAN J.)President,

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,Mumbai

& I/c. Maharashtra Real EstateAppellate Tribunal, (MahaRERA),

f4 umbai

23) Drawlng balance sheet of the above facts, the Appeals are allowed.