RERA ROUNDUP: SOME SIGNIFICANT JUDGEMENTS

The Allottee had filed complaint before Delhi RERA for relief under the provisions of the Act. Delhi RERA rejected the complaint on the ground that the Allotee was not an allotee within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act and therefore Allotee being an investor is not entitled to relief available under the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Allottee filed an appeal before Delhi REAT. Decision of Delhi REAT - Delhi REAT overturned Delhi RERA’s decision observing that the documents executed are not one-off documents created for some individual transaction but are general documents under a well thought out scheme to raise funds on an immediate basis by offering alluring returns, to attract the buyers.

It is possible that the investment may be speculative but that is so in terms of the scheme offered by Antriksh and does not take away the Allottee’s right to be considered an ‘allottee’. Delhi REAT also observed some of the covenants of the agreement dated September 24, 2017 between the parties which reinforce the claim of Allotee being an ‘allotee’ and not a mere investor. Merely because one of the clauses provides for return of 25% per annum at the end of 24 months or issuance of final land transfer certificate (whichever is earlier) is neither good enough nor sufficient ground to remove the Allotee from the ambit of the definition of allotee as provided under Section 2(d) of the Act. Delhi REAT emphasized that the nomenclature and documentation adopted by Antriksh attempted to label payments as ‘deposits’ rather than ‘investments’ in order to raise funds. Delhi REAT held that the Allotee had a “categorical right to continue with the unit,” and the buy back clause did not negate his status as an allottee. Delhi REAT held Allotee to be ‘allotee’ under the Act and directed Delhi RERA to re-examine the complaint on its merits.

HARAYANA RERA/PUNJAB HC

The Hon’ble Punjab HC concluded that, the non registration of the project by Ramprastha Developers or the lack of an order under the second proviso of Section 3(1) does not make the complaints invalid and will not oust jurisdiction Haryana RERA to decide the complaints. The Hon’ble Punjab HC held that RERA had jurisdiction to entertain complaints from allottees under sections 31 and 37 of the Act. Section 31 provides that any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the authority or the adjudicating officer for any violation of the provisions of the Act, against any promoter, allottee or real estate agent. Further, Section 37 provides that the authority may, for the purpose of discharging its functions, issue such directions from time to time, to the promoters or allottees or real estate agents, as it may consider necessary and such directions shall be binding on all concerned. The Hon’ble Punjab HC clarified that under the Act, both existing and prospective allottees have the right to approach the authority with their grievances.

KARNATAKA RERA

Karnataka RERA observed that Mantri Developers had admitted and accepted Allottee’s withdrawal from the Project and hence the Allotee was entitled to the relief of refund of the entire amount paid to Mantri Developers as per Section 18 of the Act. Further Mantri Developers has also failed to discharge the Allotee from making payment of Pre-EMI by closing loan account standing in name of the Allotee with financial institution as agreed under letter of undertaking executed between themselves and as such the Allottee is neither the beneficiary of the property nor of the loan amount as both are retained by Mantri Developers. Accordingly, Mantri Developers was directed to foreclose the Allotee’s loan with PNBHFL and Allotee was entitled to a refund of Pre-EMI paid. Karnataka RERA also held Mantri Developer liable to refund INR 25.64 million towards refund with interest to the Allottee within 60 days from the date of order

TELANGANA RERA

Telangana RERA ruled in favor of the complainants, determining that Green Metro Infratech’s unilateral cancellation of the agreement of sale was a violation of Section 11(5) of the Act and directed that penalty of INR 0.857 million was payable within 30 days on the grounds that Green Metro Infratech reversed the sale consideration amounts only subsequent to the filing of the present complaint which indicates clear violation of the provisions of the Act. Telangana RERA further emphasized that unilateral cancellation was unwarranted, and the allotments made in favor of the complainants were canceled only to discharge its liabilities. Further, the agreement of sale stipulated that the term of cancellation of the agreement would be non payment of sale consideration by the complainants. However, the complainants, through receipts provided and cheques issued had clearly paid the remaining sale consideration, complying the terms and condition of agreement for sale.

Telangana RERA also held that Bhuvanteza Infra by executing agreement of sale in favor of complainants on behalf of Green Metro Infratech had acted as a real estate agent for Green Metro Infratech. Bhuvanteza Infra was recognized as a real estate agent, as its actions—specifically offering units of the Green Metro Infratech project for sale to the complainants—clearly demonstrated that it introduced prospective buyers for the purpose of negotiating the sale or purchase of flats. This conduct falls within the definition of a real estate agent under Section 2(zm) of the Act. It was further observed that Bhuvanteza Infra’s conduct, in falsely representing itself as the true owner and promotor of the Project amounting to unfair trade practice was both misleading and deceptive, thereby violating the rights and legitimate expectations of the complainants. Therefore, Bhuvanteza Infra was in violation of Section 9 and 10 of the Act and was liable for a penalty of INR 0.857 million which is payable within 30 (thirty) days. Telangana RERA also directed that both Green Metro Infratech and Bhuvanteza Infra are jointly and severally liable for registration of respective flats of the complainants in their favor in accordance with Section 17 of the Act.

MAHARERA/BOMBAY HC

MahaRERA passed an order directing both parties to execute a registered agreement for sale as per Section 13 of Act within a period of one month in accordance with Allotment Letter failing which the money paid by Rajeshwari Ramesh and Another be refunded as agreed within a period of next one month. Decision of MahaREAT on appeal - Rajeshwari Ramesh and Another filed an appeal before MahaREAT and MahaREAT passed an order directing Aishwarya Developers to refund entire amount paid by Rajeshwari Ramesh and Another towards booking of the flat along with interest thereon. Being aggrieved by the order passed by MahaREAT, Aishwarya Developers filed a second appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

Final decision of Bombay High Court
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court emphasized that MahaREAT’s order was clear in directing a full refund, and the developer’s actions were a clear attempt to unjustly enrich themselves. It upheld the order passed by MahaREAT and dismissed the second appeal filed by Aishwarya Developers. The Hon’ble court observed that Aishwarya Developers was never really interested in executing the registered agreement as Aishwarya Developers did not even write to Rajeshwari Ramesh and Another that they were willing to execute registered agreement for sale with them. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court directed Aishwarya Developers to pay the full refund along with interest and imposed costs of INR. 0.1 million to be paid on or before April 15, 2025, for causing unnecessary litigation for Rajeshwari Ramesh and Another and accordingly disposed of the matter.

HARYANA RERA

Haryana RERA held that Imperia was obligated to pay the assured return and that Imperia had failed to fulfill its obligation as agreed upon, Accordingly, Imperia was directed to pay the assured return of INR 0.0365 million per month, for the period from January 2019 until the receipt of the occupation certificate on November 28, 2019.

Haryana RERA also observed and directed that Imperia made offer of possession for fit out on August 23, 2019, but the occupation certificate of the tower in which the unit of Complainants was situated was received on November 28, 2019. Therefore, offer of possession made on August 23, 2019, was not a valid offer of possession and no valid offer of possession was made after obtaining of occupation certificate. Hence, the Complainants are entitled for committed returns up to 3 (three) years from the date of occupation certificate dated November 28, 2019. Haryana RERA further decided that in cases where assured return is reasonable and comparable with the delayed possession interest under Section 18 then assured return is payable even after due date of handing over of possession of unit. The allotee shall be entitled to assured return or delay possession interest, whichever is higher. Further Imperia was directed to pay INR. 0.0330 million per