Tag: rera-karnataka

The Supreme Court recently held that a revocation of power of attorney executed between landowners and builder for developing their land would not absolve the landowners from being jointly and severally liable along with the builder in a consumer case for deficiency of service.

The Court observed that the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) between the builder and the landowners remained operative even after the revocation of the power of attorney. It was also held that the expression ‘henceforth’ used in the revocation letter to the builder meant that landowners would be ceased of any liability for builder’s actions that occurs subsequent to the termination and that would not exclude the landowners’ liability for the agreements that the builder entered into with the buyers before the termination.

“It further appears that though allegedly the said power of attorney was revoked by the appellants vide the letter dated 12-8-2014, the JVA has not been revoked so far and the same still continues to be in force.

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, in the letter dated 12-8-2014, the appellants had stated to be not liable “Henceforth”, i.e. after the said letter was sent. The appellants therefore were bound by the acts/deeds of the Respondent No.2 carried out pursuant to the irrevocable Power of Attorney till it was terminated, in accordance with law.”

The bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and SC Sharma was considering the challenge to the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated November 28, 2017 which upheld the order of the State Commission in holding the appellants and Respondent no.2 liable for deficiency in service for the completion of the construction of dwelling units to flat buyer who are the respondents.

The appellants who are landowners, and respondent no.2 (builder) had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) for building flats and selling them subsequently.

The appellants had also executed an Irrevocable Power of Attorney (IPA) in favour of the respondent no.1 on July 6, 2013. On the premise of the said IPA, the respondent no.2 entered into sale agreements with respondents for the sale of the flat units.

The respondents subsequently filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for being jointly and severally liable for unfair trade practices and deficiency of service in completing and handing over the possession of the6 promised flat units by the appellant and the respondent no.2

The State Commission in its order dated July 10, 2017 held (1) the appellants and respondent no.2 to be liable and directed them to hand over the possession to the complainants in a span of 6 months from date of order; (2) execute sale deed of the units as the agreement to sell between the parties; (3) the respondent no.2 to give compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- to each of the complainants for physical and mental harassment.

The said decision was upheld by the NCDRC which observed the appellants had only cancelled the JVA and IPA on August 18, 2014 which was much after the agreement entered between the Respondent no.1 and flat buyers/ remaining respondents. Noting the observation from the State Commission’s order, NCDRC stated :

“The State Commission concluded that at the time of the agreement between the builder and the complainants, the JVA and IPA were very much operative. It is evident, therefore, that the appellants cannot wash their hands off from the matter, as it would result in grave injustice to the complainants consumers.”

Arguments By The Counsels

Senior Advocate Kailash Vasdev appearing for the appellants argued that the appellants revoked the IPA granted to respondent no.2 on August 12, 2014 along with a public notice and hence could not be held liable for the acts done by the respondent no.2.

It was additionally argued that since the appellants were not privy to the agreement between the respondent no.2 and flat buyer/remaining respondents, a complaint against them under the Consumer Protection Act would not be maintainable.

Senior Advocate Siddarth Dave representing respondent no.2 had submitted that respondent no.2 was ready to complete the construction work and honour the JVA .

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan appearing for one the flat buyers/ remaining respondents highlighted that the IPA revocation letter of August 12, 2014 stated that the appellants will not be liable for the acts of the Respondent No.2 “henceforth”- that is acts done after the revocation letter is communicated.

Appellants Jointly & Severally Liable As Per The Revocation Letter; JVA Was Operative Even After Revocation Of Power Of Attorney : Bench Observes

The Bench made two key observations is holding the appellants liable jointly and severally along with the respondent no.2 – (1) the appellants while revoking the power of attorney executed to the respondent no.2 had not revoked the JVA, which continues to stay operative and (2) the use of the expression ‘henceforth’ in the revocation letter by the appellants would mean that they cease their liability only for the actions of respondent no.2 after August 12, 2014 and this wouldnot exclude them from the liability of the builder’s conduct of entering into agreements with the flat buyers.

“It further appears that though allegedly the said power of attorney was revoked by the appellants vide the letter dated 12-8-2014, the JVA has not been revoked so far and the same still continues to be in force.

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, in the letter dated 12-8-2014, the appellants had stated to be not liable “Henceforth”, i.e. after the said letter was sent. The appellants therefore were bound by the acts/deeds of the Respondent No.2 carried out pursuant to the irrevocable Power of Attorney till it was terminated, in accordance with law.”

It was also observed that appellants have also taken against respondent no.2 for non-compliance of the JVA, implying it be remain operative between the parties.

“It is also not denied that the appellants have not taken any action whatsoever against the respondent No.2 with regard to the alleged non-compliance of the terms and conditions of JAV by the said Respondent. Under the circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to say that the appellants are not liable for the acts of Respondent No.2.”

The Court therefore upheld the decision of the NCDRC and refused to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal was dismissed as being devoid of any merits.

Source: https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-holds-landowners-liable-along-with-builder-for-deficiencies-in-flat-constructions-268714

Seeking to end real estate developers’ non-compliance with pre-approved deadlines and fraudulent practices, the Karnataka Home Buyers Forum (KHBF) has appealed to the state’s new Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Rera) chairperson Rakesh Singh to issue a notification on guidelines for project closures and direct all builders and developers to comply with it.

Referring to a similar notification issued by Rera Odisha, KHBF has demanded that the same be emulated in Karnataka.

At a meeting last week, KHBF convenor Dhananjaya Padmanabhachar told Singh that most of the builders fail to comply with the pre-approved deadlines in completing their projects, due to which buyers undergo economic burden.

“After the registration of their properties as per the Rera Act, no builder in Bengaluru formally notifies the closure of the project and they instead walk away with all the benefits, including property titles which ideally should have been transferred to buyers’ associations,” Padmanabhachar explained.

He said, “Many builders assume that getting an occupancy certificate (OC) is the end of the project. Mere obtaining OC does not mean completion of the project. The builder has to facilitate the setting up of the residents’ association and handover of the title deeds, mother deed, and land records to the association. Besides, builders must initiate conveyance deeds… But none of these is happening in Bengaluru and all residents’ associations or buyers have been left in the lurch.”

Stating that a notification on project closures would help streamline all these anomalies, Padmanabhachar said, “Generally, the buyers would have deposited the money in an escrow account. Currently, the builder takes away any money left in the escrow account instead of passing this onto the residents/associations as security money for the maintenance of the structure over the next five years.” “At least this will help the associations take care of any structural damage to the buildings rather than asking all residents to pool in again,” he added.

KHBF members said resident welfare associations (RWAs) or individuals are fighting some of these anomalies. If the Rera issues a notification mandating all builders to comply with the project closure, the responsibility shifts to builders from RWAs, they argued. Padmanabhachar said Singh was positive about the requests. “The chairperson assured us that he will look into our demand and discuss it with the other members of the authority for appropriate actions,” he pointed out.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/notify-norms-on-project-closurehome-buyers-urge-k-rera-chief/articleshow/113066498.cms

While real estate experts in Bengaluru applauded handing over possession of common areas to the association, they flagged several issues affecting homebuyers.

The authority notes that most of the allottees had moved into their apartments in Mahendra Aarna located in Anekal by 2019, however, the developer had failed to form an association.

In one of the first such rulings, Karnataka RERA has ordered a developer to hand over the possession of common areas to the homebuyers’ association in a south Bengaluru project.

In this case, the developer Mahendra Homes Pvt Ltd obtained the occupancy certificate and completed the project. However, KRERA pointed out in its order dated May 16 that according to the RERA Act, the developer should transfer the possession to the association.

The authority noted that as per section 17 of the RERA Act, the developer must hand over actual possession of the common amenities and other titles to the association of the allottees within three months of obtaining OC. “The Act clearly states that the respondent must maintain the common areas until it is handed over to the association. Thus, the developer is ordered to hand over the possession of common areas within two months of the order date,” KRERA said.

Moneycontrol has earlier reported a lack of clear state guidelines on the conveyance of properties had left several owners in a lurch. Experts say Karnataka developers fail to convey the common areas to the homebuyers thus retaining ownership in the property even after being sold.

The Case

The authority noted that most of the allottees had moved into their apartments in Mahendra Aarna located in Anekal by 2019, however, the developer had failed to form an association.

Thus the homebuyers accused the developer of charging unreasonable maintenance costs, including threats of disconnecting essential services like electricity in case the homebuyers defaulted on the fines levied.

Among the other allegations against the developer in the project, homebuyers said the developer is providing electricity through a commercial line — without applying for a residential connection.

However, the developer contended that it had already completed the project and obtained the occupancy certificate. “They have formed an association of allottees according to the state real estate laws by executing the deed of declaration (DoD) in 2023,” the order mentioned.

A DoD is a legal document used in the transfer of ownership of property from one person to another.

The Order

The authority mentioned that the DoD has been executed so that the association is formed, according to the laws. However, a KRERA inspection in January 2024 found that several amenities remain incomplete — including a multi-purpose hall, eight borewells, lifts, and car parking.

Additionally, the developer has not provided the individual Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited meters to each apartment as promised. Thus it ordered the developer to complete the promised amenities and provide the electricity meters.

A Problem at Large

While real estate experts in Bengaluru applauded the order for handing over possession of common areas to the association, they flagged several issues affecting homebuyers.

Dhananjaya Padmanabhachar, director, Karnataka Home Buyers Forum, said, “Today in Karnataka after the registration of the DoD, the builder exits the project without executing the registered conveyance deed. As the DoD mentions the undivided share of land, homebuyers are left under the impression that the land title has been transferred to them and they are the owners.”
Thus, without a conveyance of common areas, the land records at the land revenue department continue to reflect the names of the previous landowner, Moneycontrol had reported.

Additionally, Padmanabhachar pointed out, “The state government has submitted its response in public interest litigation to the Karnataka High Court, dated 2021, that registration of the DoD does not amount to the registration of the association. Unlike, the authority order in this case.”

Source: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/real-estate/property-conveyance-krera-asks-developer-to-hand-over-possession-of-common-areas-to-homebuyers-12734680.html

The Karnataka REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY (K-RERA) has taken the task of the builder for not providing the necessary basic facilities to the apartment and not properly maintaining it and not serving the residents there. For the first time, it has ordered to hand over the entire fund of Rs 62.26 lakh earmarked for the maintenance of ‘K-Rera’ apartments to the Resident Welfare Association (RWA). This order of Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority is a cautionary lesson for other builders.

Because, there are thousands of apartments in Bangalore city and many of them are managed by builders. On the other hand, apartment dwellers are managing themselves by forming associations. Wherever maintenance is done by builders, monthly maintenance fee is collected from the apartment dwellers. However, it is not managed accordingly. So, in most of the apartments, there are frequent arguments and fights between the builder and the residents.

Shree Senior Homes has developed a ‘Sharadindu State-3’ housing project near Ranganakoppalu village near Pandavapura in Mandya district. Most of the senior citizens lived there. Since 2016, the builder was collecting management fee and managing it himself. However, after the formation of the Apartment Residents Welfare Association (RWA) in 2022, they stopped managing it. Before that they used to collect maintenance fee of Rs 4.50 per square feet. Due to this, a lot of money was accumulated in the revolving fund.

However, the builder is not maintaining it properly and many amenities including push button, intercom, swimming pool, hobby room have not been provided. In addition, Senior Commune Owners’ Association ‘K-Rera’ complained that the money in the fund was not being transferred to the association.

Hearing the complaint, the bench headed by the chairman of the authority, Dr HC Kishorechandra, ordered that the builder should complete the housing project within 60 days as agreed and provide all the amenities and collect and transfer the funds kept in the fund to the association.

Also, it is said that the entire housing project is still in progress. Although the project was approved in 2012, it has not yet been completed. The developer has not yet handed over the undivided share of the common area to RWA. Also, many infrastructures are yet to be created. So, it directed the builder Shree Senior Homes to complete the project immediately.

Besides, ‘K-Rera’ has also taken up the association of unregistered residents. In case the housing project is delayed, stopped or cancelled, the RWA can approach RERA to take over the project itself. The order explained that only RWAs registered under cooperative societies have such authority and can undertake housing projects.

Source: https://www.thehansindia.com/news/cities/bengaluru/k-rera-warns-builders-who-do-not-provide-basic-facilities-832845

The Karnataka High Court (HC) has quashed an order passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) that asked the developer, Provident Housing, to refund the entire booking amount to the homebuyer after the sale agreement was mutually cancelled following a dispute over the title of the land.

In the judgement, the HC allowed the writ petition filed by the developer and quashed the order for the refund that KRERA had issued in September 2020: “The judgment/order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bangalore, stands quashed.”

The project had obtained two partial occupancy certificates from the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) in 2015 and 2017.

The HC judgment said that KRERA had no jurisdiction over projects granted partial occupation certificate (OC) before the enactment of the RERA Act.

The court found that by the time the Act came into force, the construction was no longer an ongoing project.

The order defined an ongoing project as, “An ongoing project would mean where the development of a project is going on, for which a completion certificate has not been issued.”

“The issuance of occupancy certificates, albeit partial, before the Act came into force is not in dispute. Therefore, the project loses its character, as an ongoing project in terms of Rule 4 of the (KRERA) Rules,” the order added.

“Therefore, the determination by the Authority was without jurisdiction and if it is an act without jurisdiction, it is non est in the eye of the law, and if it is non est in the eye of the law, it is rendered unsustainable and requires to be obliterated,” the order said. A non est order is one that can be ignored.

Advocate H Kumar, who argued in favour of the homebuyer, said, “The court has not taken into consideration the fact that partial OC is sufficient to exempt from registration (meaning that this is an ongoing project). Prima facie, the court has not dealt with the matter in depth.”

The case

In September 2014, homebuyer Shyama Shetty booked an apartment at Provident Sunworth. However, in March 2017, Shetty decided to cancel the agreement on the ground that the land had not been legally acquired by the developer.

Shetty said that the state government wanted to take possession of the land his apartment stood on in Venkatapura village in Kengeri Hobli, and the developer moved the HC for a stay on the matter.

In June 2016, the HC ordered interim relief and directed the state government and the developer “to maintain status-quo,” the court order accessed by Moneycontrol showed.

“Despite several requests, the developer did not provide me with letters from the competent authority concerning the acquisition of land. Nor did they reply to my queries,” Shetty added.

Subsequently, on Shetty’s request, the developer cancelled the agreement and refunded Rs 17.5 lakh out of around Rs 24 lakhs Shetty had paid. The developer kept about Rs 6.8 lakh as cancellation charges and taxes, including GST.

At this point, the homebuyer moved the KRERA seeking relief and a refund of the money the developer had deducted.

KRERA findings

KRERA noted that the developer had received the partial OC in March 2017, before the enactment of RERA in the state.

However, KRERA noted per a Haryana RERA order in 2018 it was confirmed that the domain of the authority extended to projects that had not been registered. “Accordingly, the projects that have not been registered but are registrable, in case of violation of Section 3, come within the domain of the authority and the authority is well within its power to initiate legal proceedings,” the Haryana RERA order said.

The order further added that if a complaint in such a case was not entertained by the authority against an unscrupulous promoter/developer, it would “frustrate” the purpose of the Act to provide relief to homebuyers.

KRERA noted that the developer had transacted with the homebuyer even after the RERA Act was enacted in the state. “Hence the cause of action to file this complaint was alive even after the coming into force of this Act. The question of maintainability as contented by the developer has no basis,” the order stated.

KRERA concluded that the developer had returned a major portion of the amount but withheld a part of it while failing to give reasons for the same. Additionally, the order asked the developer to return the due amount within 60 days.

Karnataka HC findings

Karnataka HC cited the Supreme Court (SC) judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers vs the State of Uttar Pradesh (UP) to clarify the “ongoing” status of a project. The SC order said that in cases where only the issuance of a completion certificate was pending, the legislature intended that even those projects have to be registered under the RERA Act.

The Newtech judgment further added that Section 3(2)(b) of RERA Act specifically excludes projects where a completion certificate has been received before the commencement of the Act and which need not be registered under the Act.

The Karnataka HC added that, “With regard to the explanation of ‘ongoing project’ under the rules which exempts the application of the Act, since a partial occupancy certificate was issued prior to coming into force of the Act, the complaint was not maintainable before the Authority.”

Thus, the court concluded that, “The order passed by the Authority is without jurisdiction and a nullity in law.”

Diverse judgements on similar cases

Right to Information (RTI) activist and Bangalore City Flat Owners’ Welfare Association President Anil Kalgi cited an observation in the order that read, “If the Authority had no jurisdiction to pass the order, the developer’s petition (against paying the refund) becomes maintainable.” Kalgi added: “The interpretation of this can be diverse. The HC order did not expand on the validity of the partial OC. If the project was complete, why was a partial OC obtained? The homebuyer can appeal again,” he added.

In Karnataka, several courts and KRERA orders have challenged the validity of partial OCs, as according to BBMP (Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike) Byelaws, 2003, partial OCs can only be granted for certain floors in a project. This has also been laid down in a 2013 HC order in the case of IBC Knowledge Park on Bannerghatta Main Road, Bengaluru.

Pointing to a March 11, 2022, Karnataka HC ruling in Total Environment Building vs. Verghese Stephen, advocate Chaitanya SG said that there was no concept of a partial OC under RERA. Additionally, “The HC has ruled that no person shall occupy a building until a complete OC has been granted,” he explained.

Advocate Vittal BR, added: “Diverse judgements on similar issues will tend to confuse homebuyers, and more importantly, the future legal discourse. The SC clearly states that similar cases must be treated alike.”

Chaitanya said that under RERA Act Chapter II (3), whether a construction was an “ongoing project” or not was decided by a completion certificate. “The central Act does not refer to an OC for defining an ongoing project. The central RERA Act lays down model rules on the basis of which states notify their own rules. In which case, can states dilute or override central rules?” he added.

It is unclear whether in the case of Provident Sunworth the partial OC was obtained for certain floors or the entire project.

Source: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/karnataka-rera-has-no-jurisdiction-over-project-granted-partial-oc-before-enactment-of-rera-karnataka-hc-9824211.html

Following multiple appeals by the Karnataka Home Buyers Forum, the Karnataka Housing Department has finally taken up the case of a potential digital complaints redressal system as part of K-RERA. The home buyers had been struggling for years to get relief after being allegedly stiffed by promoters and builders.

They had appealed to various government authorities, including the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA), on complaints and cases they had filed as well as suggestions on how to improve the current system to prevent years of waiting for complainants to get relief.

One of the suggestions was the implementation of a digital complaints redressal system, similar to the one recently imposed by Haryana RERA. If the request is implemented, Karnataka will become the second state to have such a system.

The home buyers believe that this will lead to more transparency and accountability, and will also help home buyers who do not reside in the state or Bengaluru. In this regard, the buyers had appealed to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.

In a document shared with TNIE, the Housing department secretary has forwarded the request to the Karnataka Housing Department’s Secretary, who in turn asked K-RERA’s Secretary to look into the request. K-RERA Secretary Ibrahim Maigur could not be reached for comment regarding the potential implementation of the system.

Source: https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/2022/mar/26/after-pleas-rera-mayaddress-plaints-digitally-2434304.html

Thousands of homebuyers have been left in the lurch as they wait for compensation from defaulting builders for several months and revenue officials dither on recovery.

Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-Rera) listed 120 apartment projects whose promoters have failed to deliver flats within the agreed date. It asked deputy commissioners of respective districts to recover a cumulative amount of Rs 238 crore from builders and pay consumers. However, only around Rs 6.8 crore has been recovered since April and only 14 out of 5,800 consumers were fortunate enough to receive compensation.

The sorry state of affairs is being attributed to the absence of a dedicated secretary to K-Rera among other reasons.

The government had posted K Nagendra Prasad as K-Rera secretary in April after transferring KS Latha Kumari. But this is a concurrent charge given to Nagendra Prasad, who is director of the horticulture department. According to officials, enforcement of Rera rules is taking a hit because of this. “K-Rera needs a full-time secretary considering the workload and the nature of service that entitles protection of consumer interest. We have written to the government to post a dedicated secretary and response is awaited,” said K-Rera chairman HC Kishore Chandra.

“We have made some internal arrangements to ensure routine works are not hampered. While regulation issues demand dedicated attention, we are managing it with some extra working hours,” said Nagendra Prasad.

Monitoring apartment projects to see whether developers are complying with the rules and ensuring defaulters pay compensation to homebuyers demands regular field work and perpetual interaction with revenue officials. The stakeholders, including civil society organisations, argue that Rera rules cannot be effectively implemented without the presence of a full-time secretary at the real estate watchdog.

According to Rera rules, a developer who fails to deliver a flat within the deadline declared in the agreement of sale has to pay compensation — the amount decided by K-Rera adjudicating officer, and 8.5% interest on the amount paid by the customer for the delayed period. The recovery from developers is done by the revenue department and it can even attach the property in question following orders of the adjudicating officer.

In Bengaluru Urban district alone, about 600 recovery cases are pending. “A long process is involved in recovering compensation money from defaulting developers and it takes more time if it is a case for attachment. We are at it,” said Bengaluru Urban DC J Manjunath.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/demand-for-dedicated-k-rera-secretary-grows-as-compensation-cases-pile-up/articleshow/88232086.cms

The Karnataka government has told the Supreme Court that it has already adopted the model model-builder and agent-buyer agreements prescribed by the Central government to all states. It said the Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale) Rules, 2020 were notified on June 12, 2020.

Responding to the top court’s notice, the state government claimed the contention that none of the states had framed model agent-buyer agreement was incorrect and contrary to facts.

It asked the top court to dismiss a PIL filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in this regard for not being maintainable, either in law or facts.

The petitioner had sought a direction for framing the “model-builder agreement” and agent-buyer agreement in the real estate sector to infuse transparency and fairness, restraining builders and agents from indulging in unfair and restrictive trade practices.

The government said it issued circulars on October 30, 2021, and November 12, 2021, issuing directions to all deputy commissioners to comply with the orders passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority within the prescribed period.

Earlier, the Centre said a robust regulatory mechanism and draft ‘agreement for sale’ already existed under provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, to balance the rights and interest of homebuyers and promoters in an accountable and transparent manner.

The Centre further said it had shared the draft ‘agreement for sale’ in 2016, after the enactment of the RERA, with all states and Union Territories. “Currently, all States and UTs have notified rules under RERA except Nagaland with which the answering respondent is in discussion,” it said.

The Centre said it has discharged the duty by formulation of the act and delegating the rulemaking upon the states for better implementation of the provisions of RERA.

Source: https://www.deccanherald.com/state/top-karnataka-stories/realty-agreements-prescribed-by-centre-under-rera-adopted-karnataka-tells-supreme-court-1057946.html

Although the deadline was extended, real estate developers have completed a mere 51 of the 424 apartment projects, leaving thousands of homebuyers in the lurch, and prompting a stern reaction from Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA).

However, while K-RERA plans to act against defaulting developers, realtors say hurdles caused by the pandemic was the reason for projects lying incomplete and want deadlines pushed back by another six months.

K-RERA had extended the deadline for apartment projects that were supposed to be completed in April or later to September 30 as a relief measure to bolster the sector which was badly affected by the pandemic.

While data shows only a few projects have been completed within the extended deadline, KRERA officials said they will wait till the end of the month to assess the situation before cracking down on defaulting developers.

“Developers must face legal consequences if they are found to have failed to deliver flats to customers within the extended deadline. We will issue notices to them,” said HC Kishore Chandra, chairman, K-RERA.

Rules state if a builder fails to deliver a flat within the date mentioned in the sale agreement, then he must pay 9% interest on the value of the flat for the delayed period besides compensation fixed by K-RERA.

This is the third deadline extension developers were given after Covid-19 hit in March 2020. Based on the Centre’s directive, K-RERA first extended the deadline by six months from March 15, 2020 and subsequently extended it by another three months.

In all, 525 of 4,378 approved projects were unfinished within the stipulated time, while deadlines for 241 projects were extended for general reasons unrelated to Covid. While 284 applications seeking extension are still under process, the completion date has expired for 976 projects.

“This is a sorry state of affairs,” said MS Shankar, general secretary of Forum for People’s Collective Efforts. “Customers are in distress with no support forthcoming from the government. K-RERA should be proactive in enforcing rules and ensure justice for homebuyers.”

He said homebuyers must now wait longer for possession but must continue repaying home loans, while the government’s generosity is limited to developers. But developers argue that the extended deadline did not really benefit the sector since it was not uniformly applied to all projects.

“The K-RERA circular said any project that was due to be completed by April 1, 2020 gets extension up to September 30, 2020. This means the extension differs from project to project. For example, a project that was due for completion on September 29, 2020 would get an extension of only one day,” said Bhaskar Nagendrappa, president, CREDAIBengaluru, while demanding a uniform six-month extension.

But homebuyers say the extension was unwarranted as, unlike the first wave, there were no curbs on construction activity during the second Covid wave. But developers counter that saying business was severely hit because of the ferocity of infections and the higher fatality rate.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/karnataka-rera-warns-of-action-as-373-apartment-projects-unfinished-after-deadline-ends/articleshow/87221479.cms

The Real Estate Regulatory Authority-Karnataka (RERA-K) has made public a list of 32 projects across the state which have violated guidelines laid by it when releasing advertisements. All projects in the state need to mandatorily register under RERA and this number should figure in every advertisement by the promoter under Section 11 of the Act.

The 32 projects that have been listed on the RERA portal for violations are — Devagiri Emaralds, Golden Springs, Century Greens, Century Greens Phase-2, Sangam Grand, JR Habitat, Elmwood Phase-2, Aastha Properties Phase-3, Chaitanya Samarth, Century Ethos, and Centreo. RERA Secretary K S Lathakumari said, “Promoters have the responsibility of notifying the RERA registration number.

Those who have not done so, should realise this and also educate home buyers in this regard.” Under Section 11 (2) of the Act, “The advertisement or prospectus issued or published by the promoter shall mention prominently the website address of the Authority, wherein all details of the registered project have been entered and include the registration number obtained from the Authority and such other matters incidental thereto.”

M S Shankar, General Secretary, Forum for People’s Collective Efforts, told The New Indian Express, “We welcome the maiden initiatives of K-Rera which has started to analyse the advertisements of projects and issuing notices to those violating the advertisement norms per RERA Act. This kind of action will go a long way in helping home buyers from misleading advertisements.”

Source: https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2021/mar/01/rera-cracks-the-whip-on-real-estate-promoters-over-adverts-2270296.html