Tag: maharera

While the number of pending cases before MahaRERA is piling up with every passing day with more than 5,404 cases, the delay in getting hearing dates has not only irked the litigants but also the professionals practising at MahaRERA, as their demand to fill vacancies and increase the benches in MahaRERA has fallen into deaf ears. Legal brains say, if this continues, the purpose of setting up RERA to provide speedy disposal of complaints within 60 days of filing complaints is defeated.

Moreover, even with such a huge voluminous pendency of cases before MahaRERA, only two benches are functional as on date, increasing the workload on the system.

mid-day had, in its article titled ‘Wait for MahaRERA hearing dates keep getting longer’ on December 29, highlighted the concern of thousands of litigants about their plight regarding the long wait.

Speaking to mid-day, CA Ramesh Prabhu, founder chairman of Maharashtra Societies Welfare Association (MahaSEWA), said, “Considering the pending complaints, the first date of the hearing is received after nine months to one year. In the first hearing, the parties are asked if they want to explore amicable settlement through a conciliation forum. If parties do not opt for regular hearings, the date for hearing comes after six to nine months. The subsequent dates are also given after nine months. Thus, the very purpose of setting up RERA to provide speedy disposal of complaints within 60 days is defeated.”

Prabhu added, “Complaints against registered projects filed till date (since formation of MahaRERA in mid-2017) is 15,593, and 10,189 orders have been passed so far. Pending complaints stand at 5,404. Complaints filed against unregistered projects are 839 of which 784 are disposed of, thus the number of pending complaints against unregistered projects is 55. Pendency is increasing with each day. However, with the vast leap in hearings from six months to nine months, instead of the mandated 60 days as per RERA act, pending complaints may go up to 10,000 in the next six months, which is worrisome. The need of the hour is to immediately appoint three additional benches and additional manpower for clearing these cases.”

Advocate Godfrey Pimenta, who practises at MahaRERA, said, “Litigants who filed cases about a year ago are now being given dates from May to August 2022 in some of the cases handled by me, which may be the situation with other advocates as well. As such, additional members are required to be filled in to expedite the mechanism for complaint disposal ideally within 2 months from date of filing the complaint. Moreover, MahaRERA charges a fee of R5,000 per case towards filing charges, whereas other states charge a mere Rs 1,000.”

“The RERA authority was among the early few quasi judicial authorities to adapt to online hearings post the onset of the pandemic. However, the pandemic and other factors have resulted in increased defaults in the real estate industry, leading to breaches of agreements and non-delivery of the terms of sale deeds. There would, therefore, be an enhanced load on RERA. Thus, there would be an urgent need to increase the number of benches to cope with the increased load of matters” said Floyd Gracias, Supreme Court counsel.

Anil D’Souza, secretary, MahaRERA Bar Association, said, “Like all new ventures, MahaRERA is growing and will continue to grow. Hence, it needs more benches for adjudication. Since every second day, we see a MahaRERA order in the newsprint, more and more cases are now getting registered under the authority. At the same time, there is a huge stream of existing ongoing cases at various stages in the litigation process.”

“With the growing number of new cases and also the ongoing pending matters, it is imperative that there are more benches for adjudication that can reach out and address the hopefuls. Hence, a concerted effort to holistically address every stage, from court hearings to the final execution of the MahaRERA order is the need of the hour,” said D’Souza.

According to Prabhu, there are a few ways to move forward. First, MahaRERA and the state government have to increase the number of members/ benches in MahaRERA who can handle the complaints and assist in clearance of pendency. Second, the Supreme Court, in Newtech Promoters and Developers vs UP state and others, upheld the powers of RERA under section 81 of RERA to delegate its powers of complaints redressal to its members or any other person. Thus, RERA may appoint additional retired civil court judges or retired IAS officers to hear the complaints. Third, timely disposal of complaints is most important as the allottees have invested their life savings and are also paying EMI on housing loans. Any delay in deciding the complaints indirectly put the allottees to greater disadvantages etc.

Advocate Vinod Sampat, founder-president of Cooperative Societies Residents Users and Welfare Association, said, “The law stipulates that as far as possible RERA should pronounce the verdict within 90 days. This implies that a hearing should take place, all the parties should be heard and the matter must be normally disposed of within 90 days.”

He added, “As anticipated by many professionals practising in RERA, it is an open secret that dates are given after more than 90 days. The reason for the same is more work pressure and less helping hands due to staff crunch. COVID-19 lockdown also contributed to increased pendency of cases. During the first hearing, officials request the parties to go for conciliation of the matter and get the matter amicably resolved. I fail to understand why one should wait for a long time to give a date. Right now, a circular should be issued that all new matters should first go for conciliation and an attempt should be made by eminent and selfless bodies like Consumer Protection Division to get the matter resolved amicably. Presuming one is not successful with that, the matter would go on.”

He added, “If one looks at the number of cases being filed and the number of the officers attending the matters, we can clearly see that RERA benches are insufficient to cope up with the said work load. This will result in pendency of matters for years together. This requires it to be resolved in the most efficient manner.”

When asked what could be the solution, he said, “The solution is framing broad guidelines and issuing circulars. If the parties are well aware that this is the intention of RERA and if it is spelt out through circulars then people would be reluctant to delay the matter. We all know that builders use all possible tricks to delay the matter as the financial resources of the flat purchasers are limited. Moreover, the builder has got nothing to lose. These days, the nine per cent interest that may be awarded by RERA is peanuts. The need of the day is that RERA criminally prosecute defaulting builders. Unfortunately, the builders’ lobby is not taking RERA orders seriously. We all know that even the order once passed is difficult to implement due to bureaucratic constraints.”

Source: https://www.mid-day.com/mumbai/mumbai-news/article/pendency-with-maharera-will-go-up-if-additional-benches-not-appointed-23207216

The Maharashtra government has appointed a retired judge and a retired IAS officer as full time members of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) set up under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act.

Retired judge SR Jagtap has been appointed as Member, Judicial, and retired IAS officer K Shivaji has been appointed as Member, Technical/Administrative to fill vacancies, the government order issued on Tuesday said.

Jagtap has served as the designated judge of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and as a special judge in Khed-Rajgurunagar near Pune district. K Shivaji is a 1986-batch Maharashtra cadre officer who served with the Asian Development Bank before his appointment in August 2020 as Secretary Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions with additional charge as Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.

The two members will join the Tribunal presently headed by former High Court judge Justice (retd) Indira Jain. Set up on October 24, 2019, the three-member tribunal had retired IAS officer SS Sandhu serving as Member, Administrative, and retired judge Sumant Kolhe as Member, Judicial.

After Kolhe completed his term, only one bench consisting of the other two members was functioning. The tribunal adjudicates on the appeals filed against the orders passed by the housing regulator Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).

Source: https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/mumbai-two-new-members-appointed-on-rera-tribunal

As many as 3,371 residential projects across the state have been declared “lapsed” between 2017 and 2021 because the builders were unable to complete them in the deadline they had set while registering their projects with the MahaRera. Of these, 453 projects are in Greater Mumbai, according to MahaRera’s list of “expired” projects.

“The validity of MahaRera registration for these projects has expired. The promoter shall not advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be,” the regulatory authority said.

‘Funding is the biggest reason why builders’ projects lapse in state’

Builders must in such a case apply for an extension. Vasant Prabhu, secretary, Maha-Rera, said that these builders are granted a year’s extension by the housing authority. “But if they are still unable to complete the project after the one-year extension, such builders will have to seek the consent of at least 51% of the people who have booked apartments in their projects. If these flat buyers agree to a further extension, MahaRera will not object,” he said.

“Lapse of project can be avoided if the developer updates the project details mandated by MaharRera on its portal and obtains extension of project if required at a proper time,” Niranjan Hiranandani, CMD, Hiranandani Communities, and president of the builder body Naredco National, said.

Lapsed projects are not blacklisted projects, said developer and vice-president of Naredco West, Hitesh Thakkar. “It’s the timeline of the project, which is lapsed, which can be revived with consent of buyers. Developers must maintain transparency and good relations with their buyers,” Thakkar said.

Anuj Puri, chairman of ANAROCK Group, said Rera registration numbers of various projects in the state have lapsed on account of several factors, but funding is by far the biggest reason. “Rera was implemented in 2017, and a year later the IL&FS crisis held real estate hostage, particularly the residential segment. NBFCs had been a major source of funding for the real estate industry since banks were reluctant owing to rising NPAs. Funding by the NBFCs slowed down significantly with the IL&FS crisis. Private equity funding into the sector also slowed down to a trickle back then,” he said.

Puri said Grade B and C developers were the most impacted as lending to them was minimal. “It is not all doom and gloom, however. Government-backed funds are identifying some projects that are near completion to bring them to completion with last-mile funding, and some of the larger developers are taking over and reviving some other projects,” he said.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/3400-housing-projects-in-maharashtra-have-time-lapsed-rera/articleshow/85964532.cms

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRera) has directed builders to henceforth inform flat purchasers to what extent they have received construction permissions.

Currently, builders only declare that they have received the “commencement certificate” or the CC for the building without specifying anything further.

For example, the civic authority issues only stage-by-stage permission to the developer. The CC can only be restricted for plinth level or for only the first five floors of a skyscraper.

“The flat buyer is under the impression that the CC is for the entire building. This may not be so in most projects,” said a RERA source.

On Monday, RERA chief Ajoy Mehta’s office issued a circular, stating builders must now specify the details of the CC they have received.

“It is observed that layout approvals although obtained for the entire project, many a times other approvals are obtained in stages, including the commencement certificate up to a plinth/zero FSI/or commencement certificate up to a particular floor level. Flat buyers are unaware of the stage wise approvals. Therefore, it has decided to prescribe a declaration by the promoter (builder) to certify the exact stage of the commencement certificate, so that flat buyers will be aware of the same,’’ said the circular.

Builders will now have to file a declaration form and upload it along with the CC while registering the project.

In another recent order, RERA asked builders to give more clarity to buyers about flat transactions. “To avoid transactions of flats/pIots, it is necessary to provide the information as soon as sale is concluded or booking is made,” it said.

Mehta had earlier also ordered builders to meticulously submit the list of all their flat buyers along with their signatures in a proper format when seeking various permissions. Earlier, they would get away with sketchy details or shoddy paperwork when they registered their projects.

The builder will require the consent of at least 51% of the allottees if he wants extension of the completion date of the project. The consent will now be required with their names, flat numbers and signatures.

The circular has also specified that in case developers want to change the floor plan, design or make any major alterations in the sanctioned plans, they will require the consent of two-third of the people who have booked flats in the project.

Each of them will have to sign with their names and flat numbers on the promoter’s letterhead. The consent application will clearly mention the earlier building plans and the new alterations sought by the developer.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/mumbai-maharera-tells-builders-to-give-flat-buyers-permission-details/articleshow/83347765.cms

The real estate sector has faced numerous challenges and RERA has been one of the resorts that brought in significant improvements in the real estate sector. Now, to dilute the impact of the COVID pandemic on the sector, can RERA bring in more efficiency and transparency? Throwing light on this, Rohitashwa Poddar, MD, Poddar Housing and Development Ltd., addressed the National Housing Summit.

He said, ”Poddar Group is not known for real estate, however, we entered the industry to work for the Affordable Housing Scheme of the Government of India. Since the inception, we had followed the best practices but with the formation of MahaRERA made a gigantic difference in making the people understand the right developer.” As a consequence of the formation of MahaRERA platform, businesses have seen a positive rise, he added.

He expressed his gratitude towards MahaRERA saying, “I am thankful to MahaRERA for drawing a clear line between the ethical and non-ethical developers. This has not only helped the customers to buy better but has also been of great help to those who are clean. I hope this continues in the future as well. Also, I hope to see more performance-based matrices to be launched for helping people to buy the best.”

Calling RERA a pro-economy measure, Poddar said that before this came in existence there was a division of trust among the buyers. Therefore, the RERA is neither a pro-customer nor a pro-developer but a pro-economy measure. “It has made the entire system more transparent and accountable. Moreover, it helped in the growth of GDP and it will also help the real estate sector to have a significantly higher percentage of the GDP as we grow forward and become a more developed economy.”

He backed the words of Nayan A Shah, saying, “If we have RERA address the interests of all the stakeholder and hold all stakeholders responsible, I completely agree that we have to have regulatory authorities.” On this note, he requested the RERA authorities to consider the concern raised that is holding each stakeholder responsible. “In affordable housing, we work on very thin margins and delays in getting approvals makes the project costlier for the customer or our project become unviable to the degree that we cannot launch it”, added Poddar as he concludes his address.

Raising a request following the valediction of Rohitashwa Poddar’s address, Nayan A Shah raised a concern to Dr Vijay Satbir Singh that there are two legislations that govern the real estate sector in Maharashtra, Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (MOFA) and MahaRERA. “This causes confusion. We request you to kindly look into it that if MOFA can be scrapped so that there is only one legislation.”

Source: https://egov.eletsonline.com/2021/05/maharera-parts-ethical-from-unethical-developers-rohitashwa-poddar/

SRA gives project back to developer booked for cheating buyer Vile Parle Police booked two developers acting on a complaint of a homebuyer who has been duped on the pretext of getting the possession of his booked flat. The complainant had given a demand draft of Rs 95 lakh to book the flat, but the developers have not handed over the flat to him. The MahaRERA orders stated that the developers should pay Rs 1 lakh per month for delaying possession. And, they are yet to pay a total of Rs 18 lakh as penalty.

According to the police, the complainant said, in a statement, that he had booked flat 1101 in a Vile Parle building and had paid Rs 95 lakhs as the booking amount. Even after repeated reminders to give the possession of the flat, the developers kept delaying it and the matter ended up in the MahaRERA court. The MahaRERA court had ordered the developers to pay a penalty of Rs 1 lakh to the complainant until the possession is given, which the developers allegedly failed to.

Acting on this information, the complainant approached the police and lodged a complaint of cheating, forgery and common intention against them. After valid points were observed in the complaint letter, a case was lodged against them on April 7 for violating the MahaRERA orders by not paying a total of Rs 18 lakh as penalty, as directed, for not giving the possession of the flat.

Source: https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/mumbai-developers-booked-for-cheating-homebuyer-and-violating-maharera-orders

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the Maharashtra government to file an affidavit on the status of constituting a cell to monitor and prevent illegal construction across the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR). The court also directed the commissioners of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and other civic bodies in the MMR to personally explain why laws pertaining to illegal constructions were not being implemented.

In 2018, the High Court had passed a detailed order on taking action against illegal structures in the city and had directed the BMC to constitute a supervisory cell dedicated to monitoring such construction, taking punitive and preventive action, etc.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G S Kulkarni on Wednesday noted that the civic body had failed to constitute such a cell and to implement several other directions passed in the 2018 order.

The bench said the city and the entire MMR had witnessed rampant illegal construction through the years.

Instances of illegal construction had not stopped even during the lockdown imposed in view of the COVID 19 pandemic, the court said, adding that the picture would have been different if the supervisory cell had been constituted.

There was no “will” on the state’s part, the court said.

“The commissioners must be held accountable for not ensuring that the laws are enforced,” it said.

These observations were made when the bench was hearing suo-motu proceedings against dilapidated buildings and illegal structures taken up after one such building collapsed in Bhiwandi on September 23, 2020.

Earlier this year, during a hearing in the matter, the High Court had directed the BMC and the civic bodies of Thane, Navi Mumbai, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Mira-Bhayandar, Ulhasnagar and Bhiwandi-Nizampur to furnish details of punitive action taken against illegal structures in areas under their respective jurisdiction.

The court on Wednesday directed all these civic bodies to file fresh affidavits with the exact number of illegal structures under their jurisdiction.

It also suggested that the BMC come up with a separate policy for illegal commercial premises.

No one must be permitted to earn profits from such structures and that illegal commercial structures must be the first to be razed, the court said.

Source: https://realty.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/regulatory/hc-asks-maharashtra-govt-about-status-of-monitoring-cell-for-illegal-construction/81451112

MahaRERA in a recent order directed Conoor Builders to pay the owner of a flat in its Gateway project at Andheri west interest at marginal cost lending rate of SBI plus 2% for a nearly three-year delay in possession. The flat buyer’s lawyers pegged the amount at around Rs 60 lakh.

MahaRERA member, Vijay Satbir Singh, in his order has also stated the builder cannot shift its statutory liability to the land owner as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the land owner since it is not party to the registered sale agreement executed between the complainant and the respondent.

Sushant Karkera booked a flat valued at approximately Rs 2 crore in 2014. The builder was liable to hand over possession on or before December 31, 2016. However, the complainant, through his representative chartered accountant Ashwin Shah and advocate Sandeep Manubarwala, stated the builder, without giving any intimation, extended the project completion date to December 2019, which was further extended till December 2020 while registering the project with MahaRERA.

Respondent Conoor Builders, represented by advocates Anil D’Souza and Saroj Agarwal, pointed out the project got delayed due to genuine and unavoidable difficulties attributable to land owner, AH Construction. The respondent also stated the complainant was aware that AH Construction was owner as well as promoter-owner of the property as the sale agreement clearly mentioned AH Construction has all obligations to procure requisite permissions for the said building.

However, the complainant contended he had no privity of contract with AH Construction and that he had paid money for the flat to the respondent. The complainant also relied upon earlier SC judgments in case of Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt Ltd and Goregaon Pearl CHS and stated the owner is not liable to pay interest for delay in possession.

MahaRERA member Singh’s order also stated the complainant was no way concerned with the dispute between the land owner and the respondent.

The order stated if the project was getting delayed, then the respondent should have informed the complainant and should have revised the date of possession in the agreement by executing a rectification deed or should have offered a refund.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/maharera-asks-bldr-to-pay-buyer-rs-60-lakh-for-delay/articleshow/80179440.cms

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in an unprecedented case, has asked a homebuyer to pay penalty in the form of interest to the developer for delay in payment. This is contrast to usual directives from the authority to developers to pay penalty for delayed possession to a homebuyer.

According to a report in the Economic Times, SMP Namrata Associates, a developer, complaint against a home buyer for not making payment despite several demand letters.

The homebuyer had entered into an agreement with the developer to buy an under-construction apartment in Pune and the same was registered in August 2019. According to the builder’s complaint, the homebuyer had not made any payment despite several demand letters between August and December 2019.

The homebuyer then in January 2020 sent a legal notice to the builder for non-allotment of car parking space. This, along with an increase in GST charges, was cited by the homebuyer as reasons for not making payment to the developer, the business daily mentioned.

The developer then approached MahaRERA to seek its directions for cancellation of the agreement and forfeiture of the amount paid by the buyer at the time of booking.

The homebuyer had claimed that the complainant being a promoter cannot file a complaint against the allottee as there is no provision under RERA to file such complaint.

MahaRERA member, Vijay Satbir Singh opined that that the buyer being an allottee is liable to make payments in accordance with the terms and condition of the sale agreement, the publication mentioned.

The authority is of the view that in case of any default on the part of allottee or the promoter, either party would be entitled to seek interest for such a default as prescribed by the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.

Source: https://www.timesnownews.com/business-economy/industry/article/unprecedented-in-a-first-maharera-fines-homebuyer-for-payment-delay-to-builder/663475

Mumbai

The Bombay High Court has directed real estate developer Renaissance Infrastructure to pay Rs 5.04 crore as compensation to a person who had not been handed over his property in Mumbai even after a delay over 80 months. A single bench of Justice S C Gupte on September 25 upheld the orders of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the RERA Appellate Tribunal that had ordered for the compensation amount to be paid to the purchaser.

The developer had approached the HC, challenging orders of RERA and the RERA Appellate Tribunal passed in January this year. As per the HC order, the purchaser bought six plots of land and some warehousing buildings from the developer in December 2009.

According to the sale agreement, the warehousing buildings and plots were to be handed over to the purchaser by March 9, 2010. The agreement also said that if the developer failed to hand over the properties on time, he would be liable to pay the purchaser a compensation amount at the rate of Rs 10 per sq ft per month.

When the developer failed to hand over the property, the purchaser approached the RERA that calculated the compensation amount as Rs 5.04 crore. The Renaissance Infrastructure challenged this order before the appellate tribunal, which asked the developer to deposit 50 percent of the compensation amount as per the RERA Act for entertaining the appeal.

But, when the developer failed to pay the pre-deposit, the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal. The developer then filed a second appeal in the HC.

In his order, Justice Gupte dismissed the second appeal after holding that there were no infirmities in the orders passed by the RERA and the appellate tribunal. He held that the orders do not give rise to ”any substantial question of law for the consideration of the High Court”.

Justice Gupte said the Renaissance Infrastructure was liable to hand over the property as agreed to. ”Under this agreement, termed as an agreement for sale, the appellant (Renaissance) was bound to hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent within an agreed period,” the high court said.

It directed the developer to pay Rs 5.04 crore to the purchaser within four weeks.

Source: https://www.cnbctv18.com/legal/bombay-hc-directs-developer-to-pay-rs-5-cr-for-delay-in-property-hand-over-7063901.htm