Tag: rera-india

Since Delhi is primarily a low-rise building market, local builders renovate the property and sell the floors independently for as much as Rs 30 crore each.

Earlier, Section 3(2) (a) of RERA provided for an exemption from registration if the land proposed to be developed was less than 500 square meters or the number of apartments proposed to be developed did not exceed eight. Many developers in posh colonies in Delhi have been avoiding registrations using this loophole.

BS Vohra, a right-to-information activist, said that the situation remains the same after the order as there is no one to look over the construction activity. Even when the plot size exceeds 500 square meters, some under-construction buildings in West-end, Vasant Vihar, Anand Lok, and Panchsheel Park are being developed without RERA registration.

Vohra said that the RERA should ensure that the rule is being followed after making it mandatory. The RERA chief could not be reached for comment.

The entire city of Delhi has registered only 81 projects, which is the lowest number in the country. Several builders in South Delhi with plots ranging from 800-1,000 square meters have not registered their projects with the RERA.

The convenor of the CII-Delhi sub-committee on real estate, urban development, and infrastructure, Harsh V Bansal said, “We need to push for organized development in Delhi. There are no major projects in Delhi while Noida and Gurgaon are benefiting from organized development”.

The Delhi RERA had threatened to impose a fine that could be up to 10% of the estimated cost of the real estate project if it was not compliant with RERA guidelines.

The registration procedure should be transparent with regard to the funds received from the purchasers, the completion and conveyance of the property in favor of the allottees, and the assurance that the project has received the required approvals and sanctions.

Many properties in Delhi’s posh colonies are worth Rs 20-100 crore. Older people and NRIs make up the majority of the previous owners who either sold or worked with developers.

The RERA had said in its order that the authority also suggests the general public to avoid investing in any residential or commercial real estate project.

Source: https://www.ipropunited.com/news/majority-of-delhi-realtors-are-avoiding-rera-registrations-of-the-projects/

West Bengal’s newly established property regulator anticipates that all existing projects in the state would be registered under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 within three months, relieving buyer worries about completion timelines and quality.

Not-yet-completed projects promoted, advertised, and sold without Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Rera) licences are among those required registration with the West Bengal Rera.

The state regulatory chapter commenced operations around 18 months after the Supreme Court invalidated the state’s own law, the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act of 2017. (WBHIRA). In February of 2014, the Supreme Court ordered the state to immediately adopt Rera.

“According to the guidelines set out by the WBRera authorities, within three months after the creation of the Rera authority in the state, all projects in the state that were previously promoted without licence and have yet to be finished must be registered.

2022 homeowners grouped under the name of the Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) wrote to the chief minister in August, requesting that he intervene and deliver the required directives to make Rera and the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal operative under the central Act.

It had highlighted concerns around unregistered launches, extra money collecting, and “diversion.”

It is a positive beginning and will inspire trust in homebuyers. However, the web site is not yet operational, and a method for filing complaints online will assist homebuyers in the future, according to a worried individual.

Source: https://www.ghar.tv/blog/article_soon-west-bengal-real-estate-projects-will-be-registered-with-rera_659.html

After more than five years since its implementation, RERA has made remarkable progress in addressing consumer complaints across different states and UTs.

Data available with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs indicates that so far, 1,00,949 cases filed under the various State iterations of RERA have been disposed of by these authorities as of 8 October 2022. Of these, approx. 72% cases (72,979 complaints) were resolved in the last three years, which include the Covid-19 pandemic.

Taking the lead over previous torchbearer MahaRERA, Uttar Pradesh’s UP RERA saw as many as 40,559 cases disposed of so far – against a mere 11,596 cases in October 2019. Haryana comes a distant second with approx. 20,539 cases disposed of, against just 2,480 cases in the corresponding period of 2019. Still going strong but no longer in the pole position, MahaRERA has so far disposed of approx. 12,507 cases.

Commenting on the same, Anuj Puri, Chairman, ANAROCK Group, said, “Still nowhere close to saturation effect but showing ‘real‘ progress, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act has been visibly fulfilling one of its key functions – resolving homebuyer grievances. As per official data from MoHUA, the respective RERA authorities of various state and UTs have addressed more than a lakh consumer complaints.”

“While this is impressive, it is also true that there remains a big question mark with regards to 100% resolution,” said Puri. “At the end of the day, RERA still lacks sufficient execution powers – a fact which the Supreme Court has also expressed apprehensions over. Meanwhile, the pandemic did not break the pace of project and real estate agent registrations over the last three years.”

Project & Agent Registrations

Amounting for an impressive 109% growth in last three years, approx. 94,513 projects have so far been registered under RERA to date, from approx. 45,307 on 8th of October 2019. The states with maximum project registrations are Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Telangana and Tamil Nadu. Together, these states account for a significant 83% share with approx. 78,258 registered projects. Maharashtra still tops the list with approx. 38,229 project registrations.

While it leads in terms of disposal of cases, UP has seen the lowest growth of 22% in project registrations in the past three years. In October 2019, the state had approx. 2,710 registered projects while the currently number stands at approx. 3304 projects, indicating that the primary focus in UP has been on project completions rather than new launches.

Among the top 7 states, Jharkhand has seen the highest three-year growth of 855% in project registrations – from 103 in October 2019 to approx. 984 projects today. Tamil Nadu recorded a 828% jump in the period – in October 2019, the state had 1,154 projects registered under RERA; this has increased to 10,711 projects today.

Meanwhile, registration of real estate agents under RERA has risen by 95% in the last three years – from 35,699 on 8 October 2019 to approx. 69,766 on 8 October 2022. Maharashtra retains its lead with the maximum number of projects and agent registrations:

* As on 8th October 2022, Maharashtra saw 38,229 projects and 38,969 agents registered under MahaRERA

* In Tamil Nadu, 10,771 projects and 2,596 agents have been registered as of October 2022

* Gujarat has seen 10,030 projects and 1,953 agents registered to date

* In Karnataka, 6,313 projects and 3,590 agents are currently registered under RERA

* Telangana currently has 5,148 projects and 2,448 agents registered

* Madhya Pradesh has seen 4,523 projects and 1,287 agents registered.

* In Uttar Pradesh, 3,304 projects and 5,583 agents have been registered.

* Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Bihar are witnessing increasing momentum with 2,096, 1,562 and 1,470 projects registered respectively.

Source: https://www.financialexpress.com/money/jharkhand-sees-highest-3-year-jump-in-rera-project-registrations-up-just-22/2725240/

If media reports are to be believed, after the Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA) came into being, all the government officials have become careful in sanctioning building plans, builders are now fearful of the law and the judiciary is trusted as more proactive than reactive.

A fellow panelist at a TV debate emphasised that Supertech twin towers violations are pre-Rera realities. The market has changed a lot in the post-Rera world. Really? I wonder where. Are we talking about some other part of the world?

To be sure, Supertech demolition is not the first such landmark judgment that has been shaping the industry narrative. In 2014, the Competition Commission of India had slapped a Rs 630 crore fine on DLF. However, it is not about one or two defaulters but the ecosystem that supports perpetrators and definitely not the victim – the homebuyers. The C-SAT score of Indian real estate (as per Track2Realty survey) slipped from 20 (out of 100) in 2011, to 18.

All the reforms like RERA, GST, Benami Transactions and demonetisation, etc are reforms only on paper. Nothing has changed on the ground for the hapless homebuyers.

Policy interventions have only made the builders smarter in dodging the bullet. For example, one of the builders in Greater Noida West is forcing buyers to sign an advance consent that the builder is free to make any future changes in the FAR and layout. Any resistance by the homebuyers is silenced with the builder’s wrath and the two-third (needed to vet it) succumb before the mighty builder. One aggrieved homebuyer who approached the consumer commission against the unfair contract is running from pillar to post for speedy justice.

Another builder I know threatens the buyers that if they dare approach Rera against any delay or default, he will make life miserable by delaying the possession of dream homes for years with multiple counter litigations. Salaried homebuyers burdened with both rent and the EMIs can’t challenge the builder in lengthy and costly litigation. This has been a question that even the Supreme Court pointed out in its judgment against Supertech Twin Towers.

I met a harassed homebuyer who wanted to sell his under-construction apartment due to a health emergency at home. The builder refused transfer and said that he could buy back only at the same rate at which he had sold the unit four years back. So all the appreciation benefits go to the builder but the interest burden is the liability of the buyer. The exploitation doesn’t end here. Once the apartment was bought back, the buyer with a critical health emergency at home was asked to wait for the refund till the builder sells off the same unit to someone else. You are trapped in the builder’s net!

You buy a toothpaste for Rs 50 and can criticise the brand on social media if you did not like it. But you can’t criticise the builder who sold the house worth at least Rs 50 lakh with your lifetime earnings. If you do, the builder sends a statement “our legal team is looking into your issue; it is a case of defamation”. One builder has it in his Builder Buyer Agreement that anything not liked by the buyers has to be settled through an arbitrator and the buyer ceases to have any right to amplify the issue on social media. Who will be the arbitrator if the project is delayed or falls short of the buyers’ expectations? It will be appointed by the company (builder) only.

So, is the industry narrative that the landmark judgment would help reform the murky world of Indian real estate correct?

I continue to wonder when and where the wave of reforms swept the business of real estate in this part of the world. A homebuyer is trapped in the builder’s net the moment he pays the token amount. Thereon, he has no choice but to succumb to the builder’s wishes.

Source: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/real-estate/pre-rera-era-supertech-towers-demolished-but-have-things-changed-under-the-new-regime-9101321.html

The surge in realty projects assuring umpteen homebuyer of the dream of having their own homes have failed to become reality. The aftermath of Real Estate Developer’s inability to deliver projects on time, have left many homebuyers with the additional burdens of paying EMI without having anything in hands.

The Delhi High Court recently in Ashish Tiwari v. Union Bank of India dated January 31, 2022, hearing a number of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India of Homebuyers against Banks/ Housing Finance Companies (HFC) disbursing the loan amount through subvention schemes to the developers without even examining the fact as to whether the developers are in a position to complete the construction gave interim relief directing that banks/HFC shall not take any coercive action against the homebuyers to recover EMIs for pending projects where the builders were supposed to pay the EMIs till possession.

Ashish Tiwari v. Union Bank of India- Brief Facts

The Petitioners booked flats with the builders and took home loans under the subvention scheme by entering into a Tripartite Agreement with the builders and the banks. The subvention scheme provided for the banks to disburse the sanctioned amount directly to the accounts of the builders, who were then to pay EMIs on the sanctioned loan amount, until possession of the flats is handed over to the homebuyers. However, builders started defaulting in paying the EMIs to the banks as per the Tripartite Agreement, and subsequently the banks initiated action against the homebuyers to recover the EMIs instead.

Contention by Petitioners

The Petitioners raised the contention that the Banks/ HFCs have given funds to the builder in flagrant violation of the directions issued by the RBI and the NHB wherein the banks have been directed to exercise due caution while disbursing of housing loans sanctioned to individuals under subvention scheme. The Petitioners further submitted that the Respondent/ Banks/HFCs cannot claim payment towards the loan amount, which they in this present matter pre-maturely disbursed to the builders. The Petitioners also submitted that the banks, have in fact, acted in collusion with the builders, in releasing the loan amount even without examining whether the builder was in a position to complete the project or not. The Petitioners in their support placed reliance on the orders passed in Hridesh Kumar Pathak v. Bank of Maharashtra2 and Jayanta Kumar Mishra and Another v. Union of India3, wherein the Division Bench, by way of interim orders, restrained the banks from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioners or the homebuyers.

Contention by Respondents/ Banks/HFC

The Respondents submitted that once the Petitioners had knowingly signed a Tripartite Agreement, they cannot now shift the blame solely on the banks for any default on the part of the builders, and evade their liability to re-pay EMIs in respect of the loans issued in the favour of the Petitioners.

Contention On Behalf Of RBI

Further, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V. Giri appearing for the RBI, submitted that the banks are required to comply with the directions and guidelines issued by the RBI whereby the banks were directed to ensure that the disbursal of the loan amount shall be strictly linked with the stages of construction, and no upfront disbursement shall be made in case of under-construction projects.

Order

The Hon’ble Justice Rekha Palli noted relevant extracts of the RBI circular dated 01.07.2015, pertaining to the issue of subvention schemes or “innovative housing loan schemes” wherein it was observed that such housing loan products are likely to expose the banks as well as their home loan borrowers to additional risks e.g. in case of dispute between the individual borrowers and builders, default or delayed payment of EMIs by the builder during the agreed period on behalf of the borrower, non-completion of the project on time, etc. The Hon’ble Justice further noted circular dated 09.07.2019 issued by the NHB, wherein it was observed that the housing finance companies (HFC’s) shall desist from offering loan products involving servicing of the loan dues by builders on behalf of the borrowers and the disbursal of housing loans sanctioned to the individuals shall be closely linked to the stages of construction of the housing projects and disbursal shall not be made in case of incomplete or under-construction projects.

The Hon’ble Justice vide this interim order observed that despite the banks having disbursed the loan amounts when the construction was admittedly incomplete, the Petitioners were being asked to pay the amount that was initially required to be paid by the builders.

The Court further observed that the Petitioners who are individual homebuyers are also facing grave financial hardship on account of the devastating impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the Petitioners have made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience also lies with the Petitioner and grave and irreparable loss would be caused to the homebuyers if they are forced to pay the EMIs in this challenging times due to the default of the builders. Thus, the Court vide this order granted an interim stay in favour of the homebuyers against the recovery of EMIs for pending projects where the builders were supposed to pay the EMIs till the possession.

Conclusion

This interim order in favour of the homebuyers, highlights the sorry state of affairs of the construction industry, where without any possession, innocent homebuyers are being forced by the banks/HFC’s to pay EMIs due to the default of the builders. Thus, the approach of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in interim order restraining the Banks/HFC’s from taking any coercive steps against the homebuyers is a big positive steps, and especially in such cases where the builders in collusions with the banks/ HFC’s have flagrantly violated the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and the National Housing Bank.

Source: https://www.mondaq.com/india/real-estate/1191264/no-action-to-recover-emi-for-stuck-realty-projects

In February, the Supreme Court directed the Centre to examine whether the rules framed by various states under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) are in conformity with the central legislation and subserve the interest of homebuyers.

Union minister for housing and urban affairs Hardeep Singh Puri on Tuesday asserted that there should be no dilution of the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, called as RERA, by states, and assured that the Centre will not bring the “whole template down” even if some states decide to dilute the norms.

He said the RERA is a widely accepted legislation and its success is anchored in the spirit of gradual but steady problem-solving.

The minister was speaking at a meeting of the Central Advisory Council (CAC), constituted under the RERA Act, 2016.

During the meeting, measures to ensure structural safety in high-rise buildings and prevent loss of life as well as property, besides considering a proposal to set up a high-level panel to address the issue of stalled projects, was discussed.

Regarding incidents of building collapses, Puri said homebuyers should have a sense of confidence that a building is structurally sound.

The responsibility has to be assumed by the builders themselves. If the builder has gone wrong, or he/she has not been able to check something, full recovery from that person is the minimum, as thousands of people get affected, he said.

Meanwhile, it was pointed out that some states have tweaked the provisions of RERA while framing rules under the Act by exempting the registration of ‘ongoing projects’.

In February, the Supreme Court directed the Centre to examine whether the rules framed by various states under the RERA are in conformity with the central legislation and subserve the interest of homebuyers.

“The fact of the matter is that you did not have a regulator and then you are bringing in the regulator, so everybody will try to stop it. When they found that we are resolute in our determination and they try to do something else, they tried to tweak it,” Puri said.

The minister said the Centre will place before the Supreme Court all the facts related to dilution of RERA Act by the state governments.

“I think we should place the fact squarely before the apex court that if all of us agree and some state do this (the dilution), we have enough persuasive power at our disposal to tell them this is not right. No dilution is a norm. Those who have diluted will have to justify why they have diluted. And we will not bring the whole template down just because you have diluted it,” Puri said.

In the meeting, it was also highlighted that all states/UTs have notified rules under RERA, except Nagaland which is in process to notify the rules.

As many as 31 states/UTs have set up Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Regular-25, Interim-6). States like Meghalaya, Sikkim, West Bengal and Union Territory of Ladakh are yet to establish the authority.

“The best thing about RERA is that it has come to be widely accepted in the country. And its success is anchored in the spirit of gradual but steady problem solving,” Puri said.

There are 30 members in the CAC panel which includes Niti Aayog CEO and secretaries of many ministries. President of homebuyers’ body Forum for Peoples’ Collective Efforts Abhay Upadhyay as well as presidents of realtors’ body CREDAI and Naredco are members of the council.

On the implementation of RERA Act by states, Upadhyay suggested that a committee should be formed, under the leadership of additional secretary, comprising all stakeholders to take up the issue with respective states. He said the suggestion of the FPCE (Forum for Peoples’ Collective Efforts) has been accepted.

Regarding tweaking of rules by states, Upadhyay suggested that necessary instructions should be given for compliance of the Supreme Court order in letter and spirit. The general rules for all states should also be reviewed along with ‘agreement for sales’ and placed before the apex court, he added.

FPCE has suggested that necessary directives should be issued to all states to ensure sufficient technical teams are provided to the regulatory authority to inspect every stage of construction at regular intervals to ensure structural safety and quality of construction.

Regarding constitution of committee of resolution of legacy stalled projects, Upadhyay said it was agreed to include FPCE as homebuyers’ representative in the proposed committee to look into this issue.

On the stalled projects, the CAC agenda highlighted that the Centre has established the Alternate Investment Fund (AIF)- Special Window for Affordable and Mid-Income Housing Fund (SWAMIH) investment fund of ₹25,000 crore to provide last mile funding for projects.

The fund is being provided to projects that are net-worth positive and registered under RERA, including those projects that have been declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs), or have pending proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

As on February 14 this year, 249 deals aggregating to ₹23,778 crore have been approved, and this will benefit more than 1,46,946 homebuyers and unlock projects worth ₹66,163 crore.

“It is evident that this fund has proved to be very instrumental in completing the legacy stalled projects, and is fulfilling the dreams of homebuyers who invested their lifetime savings in these legacy stalled projects which were launched before enactment of RERA,” the agenda said.

Accordingly, the CAC might advise the Centre to constitute a committee under the chairmanship of NITI Aayog CEO to deliberate on all the issues related to these legacy stalled projects holistically.

“The committee may comprise representatives from the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, sectors’ experts (dealing with stalled projects and insolvency proceedings) and give its recommendations to the central government within two months from date of its constitution,” the agenda said.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/real-estate/states-should-not-dilute-rera-provisions-union-housing-minister-puri-101649844593293.html

The Central Advisory Council (CAC) meeting scheduled for April 12 will discuss issues relating to the structural safety of real estate projects following an incident of partial roof collapse in Gurugram wherein two women were killed.

The meeting will also deliberate on constituting a committee for the resolution of legacy stalled projects and the issue of some states tweaking the provisions of RERA, while framing rules under the Act by exempting the registration of ‘ongoing projects.’

The CAC, set up by the government for effective implementation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), will hold its third meeting on April 12. The first two meetings of the CAC were held on May 14, 2018, and April 29, 2020.

The council, chaired by Housing and Urban Affairs Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, will consider measures like physical inspection of projects during construction and structural audit at regular intervals by reputed institutes.

“Recently, there have been reports of incidents related to structural safety in multistorey apartments. Though, RERA mandates the promoters to rectify the structural defects highlighted within a period of 5 years from the date of possession, some provisions related to structural safety may be deliberated to ensure further safety of high-rise buildings and to prevent loss of life and property.

“These provisions may include a physical inspection of projects during construction, Structural Audit by reputed institutes on regular intervals, declaration of Structural Safety by promoter before applying for completion or occupancy certificate, etc. Central Advisory Council may consider,” according to the agenda.

The committee may comprise representatives from the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, sector experts (dealing with stalled projects and insolvency proceedings) and give its recommendations to the central government within two months from the date of its constitution, the agenda said.

“Central government established the Alternative Investment Fund (AIF)- Special Window for Affordable and Mid-Income Housing Fund (SWAMIH) Investment Fund of Rs 25,000 crore to provide last mile funding for projects that are net-worth positive and registered under RERA, including those projects that have been declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) or are pending proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC),” it said.

“As of February 14, 2022, 249 deals aggregating to ₹23,778 crore were approved which will benefit more than 1,46,946 homebuyers and unlock projects worth ₹66,163 crore,” it said.

It is evident that this fund has proved to be very instrumental in completing the legacy stalled projects and is fulfilling the dreams of homebuyers, who invested their life savings in these legacy stalled projects, which were launched before the enactment of RERA, it said.

The third meeting of the CAC will also discuss the issue of tweaking RERA provisions by some states. The CAC agenda noted that all states/UTs have notified rules under RERA except Nagaland, which is in the process to notify the rules.

As many as 31 states/UTs have set up Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Regular-25, Interim-06). States like Meghalaya, Sikkim, West Bengal, and UT of Ladakh are yet to establish authority.

In the agenda, it was pointed out that some states have tweaked the provisions of RERA while framing rules under the Act by exempting the registration of ‘ongoing projects. The matter was taken up by the housing ministry on several occasions and through various communications.

The CAC in its first meeting deliberated upon the issue of dilution by the states while framing rules under the Act. As decided in the meeting, the ministry has taken up the matter through various communications.

Homebuyers’ body Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) president Abhay Upadhyay said in a statement that the agenda for the upcoming CAC meeting shows that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs is serious and keen to address all major concerns not only in the implementation of RERA but also in providing resolution for incomplete legacy stalled projects started before RERA came into force.

“We have been raising the issue of dilution in RERA Rules by the states due to which many incomplete projects were left out of the ambit of RERA and also that RERA Authorities are unable to enforce their own orders due to which RERA orders became nothing more than a piece of paper.

“The recent incident of poor construction quality leading to loss of lives will also be part of the discussion,” Upadhyay said.

The proposal to form a committee under the Chairmanship of CEO, NITI Ayog is also welcome and shows that the government is keen to ensure the completion of remaining incomplete stalled legacy projects, he said.

“We have also come to know that the Ministry has accepted our suggestion to live stream the proceedings of the CAC meeting on social media platforms to ensure complete transparency,” Upadhyay added.

Source: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/real-estate/structural-safety-of-real-estate-projects-changes-in-rera-provisions-to-figure-in-upcoming-cac-meeting-8297181.html

Homebuyers’ apex body FPCE expects the implementation of realty law RERA to improve following the Supreme Court’s recent direction to the Centre to examine the rules framed by states and see whether those subserve the consumers’ interest.

Last month, the Supreme Court directed the Centre to examine whether the rules framed by various states under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) are in conformity with the central legislation and subserve the interest of homebuyers.

A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant gave three months to the Centre to examine if there are any deviations between the rules drawn up by the states and those framed by the Centre in 2016, and to place the report by the first week of May 2022.

When contacted, Forum for People’s Collective Efforts’ (FPCE) President Abhay Kumar Upadhyay said: “Despite five years of its full implementation, RERA is yet to reach anywhere near its intended objective.”

The prime reason for this is that the states to whom responsibility has been given for its implementation did not follow any uniformity in their general real estate rules and rules for agreement for sale, he pointed out.

“Their (states’) rules were not within the four corners of the provisions of RERA. This took sting out of the Act and homebuyers were deprived of the benefits of RERA,” Upadhyay said.

On the other hand, the association’s president said, builders took full advantage of this and the fear of RERA catching them faded.

“In view of this, though late, but still this ruling from the Supreme Court will set things right going forward and many homebuyers will then reap the benefit,” he added.

Most importantly, this ruling would break the belief in most builders that they are above the law or that they can take the law for granted, he said.

“I sincerely hope that both the ministry to whom the task has been assigned directly and also the Amicus who has also been given responsibility will devote sufficient time and report not only all deviations but also missing content which may have left loopholes in the implementation of RERA,” Upadhyay said.

This order has once again raised the hopes of homebuyers that they will get justice sooner than later, he added.

Colliers India CEO Ramesh Nair said the Supreme Court’s decree to scrutinise RERA rules of states is significant as there is a lack of uniformity in builder-buyer agreements across RERA rules of various states.

“This directive will help bring accountability and transparency in dealings between homebuyers and developers in several cases,” he said.

The anomalies mainly existed with respect to the payment schedule, delivery schedule and associated delays, as well as liability towards structural defects, Nair pointed out.

“A uniform builder-buyer agreement will also lead to more confidence amongst homebuyers. It will instill trust in homebuyers, without the fear of any unwarranted liabilities,” Nair said.

Homebuyers would also have more faith in developers across the spectrum, and even in under-construction projects, the Colliers India CEO said.

Source: https://realty.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/rera-implementation-to-improve-post-sc-direction-on-examining-states-rules-fpce/90181477

Developers now may have to think twice before challenging Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) orders as the Supreme Court has directed that developers should either deposit full compensation and interest imposed by the regulatory body or at least 30 per cent of the penalty before they can challenge the order before the appellate authority. Professionals practising in MahaRERA welcomed the SC decision and said the order has hit the nail on the head by ensuring that flat owners get justice and do not fall prey to the delaying tactics often adopted by the builders by challenging such orders.

CA Ramesh Prabhu, founder chairman of MahaSEWA (Maharashtra Societies Welfare Association), said, “This is a landmark and welcome decision passed by the Supreme Court. Now the promoters will think many times before the appeal is filed. Now they may decide to file the appeal if they are sure of winning. Appeals by promoters will come down drastically. The judgement has put all the doubts to rest. Even the appellate tribunal will not be able to proceed to admit the appeals of the promoter unless 100 per cent of the amount is deposited.”

“However, if the allottees are aggrieved against the order of authority or adjudication officer, the appeal may be filed without depositing any amount. This also becomes a great deterrent to the promoters to file the appeal. Therefore, now we find most of the promoters try to settle the dispute out of court as soon as complaints are filed,” Prabhu said.

Solicitor Stuti Galiya said, “It is a well known fact that builder lobbies have abundant legal and financial resources and they often create separate legal budgets for each project. Hence, it is seen that most of the time, developers/builders do not take the legal action against them seriously, as they believe that they could easily get through by stretching the matter in various forums for years and years. This often results in justice being denied to flat owners as they often are not able to fight such a long legal battle, for financial and time constraints. This judgement has hit the nail on the head by ensuring that flat owners get justice and do not fall prey to the delaying tactics. This is certainly a positive and welcome move in the right direction.”

Advocate Godfrey Pimenta, who practises in MahaRERA, said, “The Supreme Court judgement only endorses section 40(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 that the amount invested by the allottees, which is often their life savings, along with the interest thereon as quantified by the regulatory authority or the adjudicating officer, can be recovered as arrears of land revenue by them from the builders. However, the practical difficulty faced by the flat buyers is the laborious process in attaching the properties of the developer.”

Advocate Vinod Sampat, founder president of Flat Users Residents Welfare Association, said, “The said judgement is a big boost to flat purchasers. Builders who delay construction or the project for one reason or other will have to refund the principal amount and interest to defaulted flat buyers. It is common knowledge that delaying tactics are adopted by both builders and as well as their advocates. The approach of the court to insist on the deposit before accepting an appeal is a welcome move.”

The case

Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited v State of Uttar Pradesh and others is a case where the flat buyer filed a complaint against the developer for non-compliance of possession of flat within the stipulated time period, as per the agreement. The complainant had booked a flat by paying a consideration of Rs 28.21 lakh on October 4, 2012, and the possession, as per the agreement, was to be given by 2015. However, when the developer failed, the buyer moved the complaint demanding refund of Rs 28.21 lakh with interest.

The state RERA authority found the complainant’s claims to be true and accordingly on April 5, 2019 passed an order directing the developer to refund the principal amount of Rs 28.21 lakh along with interest of Rs 19.82 lakh. The developer, instead of executing the RERA order, moved a writ petition challenging the same including the recovery certificate dated September 8, 2020 holding it to be without jurisdiction as it has been passed by a single member of RERA. The developer claimed the single member had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. However, the SC set aside the developer’s plea and passed the landmark verdict.

Source: https://www.mid-day.com/mumbai/mumbai-news/article/supreme-court-ruling-binding-builders-to-pay-before-challenging-rera-order-a-welcome-move-23208089

Four and a half years since Real Estate Regulatory and Development Act came into force, Maharashtra continues to lead the country in terms of projects registered. Experts, though, say that the Act, which has brought about discipline into the real estate sector, needs more teeth and manpower to plug its loopholes.

Analysis by Anarock — a real estate consultancy firm – showed that across the country, 71,307 projects have been registered with the regulator. Maharashtra has reported the highest registration with 31,664 projects, followed by Gujarat (9,272) and Karnataka (4,497), respectively.

In terms of grievance redressal of homebuyers, as many as 78,903 cases have been disposed so far by various state and Union Territory (UT) regulatory authorities. Uttar Pradesh and Haryana have disposed the highest number of cases, accounting for an approximately 61% share of total disposed cases. “UP saw 30,990 cases disposed, and Haryana nearly 16,864 cases, as per the latest progress report released by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs,” the report read.

All states, except Nagaland, the report said, notified rules under Rera act; the northeastern state is in the process of doing so.

As many as 30 states and UTs have set up their Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) of which Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, Meghalaya, Sikkim and West Bengal have notified their rules but are yet to establish their authorities. Besides, 28 states have set up Appellate Tribunals with Arunachal Pradesh, J&K, Ladakh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Sikkim and West Bengal under the process of establishing the same.

On the loopholes in the law, Prakash Thakur, head of research team of Anarock, said manpower shortage is one of the major concerns for the authority. The Act specifies regular updating of sales report and project reports but that rarely happens, he said. Also, the authority does not have an efficient way to check the documents, which are uploaded on the website by the realtors, he added. Thakur said the mere regulatory nature of the authority does leave a gap in implementation of the orders of the RERA.

Both Thakur and Anuj Puri,chairman of Anarock Group, were quick to point out that the judiciary has stepped in to plug some of the loopholes that have been felt in the act. Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 on all realty projects that were ongoing and had not received completion certificates until the law came into effect. This means that states that had diluted the provisions and did not include several under-construction projects under RERA’s ambit are now expected to do so.

As a result, we may see increased number of residential projects being completed in times to come,” said Puri. “Many developers with under-construction projects outside RERA had focused their resources on projects that did come under its ambit. This is no longer an option. The number of heavily delayed and even stalled units is likely to reduce. As per Anarock data, as of July 2021, nearly 6.29 lakh housing units launched in 2014 or before were incomplete or stalled across the top seven cities,” he added.

Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/rera-has-brought-discipline-to-real-estate-sector-but-needs-more-teeth-say-experts-7648221/