Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY

AUTHORITY,MUMBAI

1. Complaint No. CC006000000192739

1. Mr. Sajid Sulaiman
2. Mrs. Ayisha Sajid ....Complainants
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2.MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited
....Respondents

Along With
2. Complaint No. CC006000000192741
Mr. Shivashish Misra ....Complainant
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

Along With
3. Complaint No. Cc006000000192742
1. Mr. Venkatesham Neela
2. Mrs. Harika Neela ....Complainants
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

Along With
4. Complaint No. Cc006000000192758
Mr. Madhusudhana Reddy Upparlapalli ....Complainant
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

Along With
5. Complaint No. Cc006000000192759
1. Mr.Gautam Bhargava
2. Mrs.Ridhi Bhargava ....Complainants
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

Page 1 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

Along With
6. Complaint No. Cc006000000192760
1. Mr. Akilesh Eswaran
2. Mrs. Pia Mukherjee ....Complainants
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

Along With
7. Complaint No. CC006000000192762
Mr. Satish Agrawal ....Complainant
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

Along With
8. Complaint No. CC006000000192926
Mr. Venkatakrishnan Neelakantan ....Complainant
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

Along With
9. Complaint No. CC006000000192927
1. Mr. Siddharth Ankathil
2. Mrs. Kivya Gupta ....Complainants
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

Along With
10. Complaint No. CC006000000192928
1. Mr. Vipul Kant Mishra
2. Mrs. Alka Mishra ....Complainants
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

Along With
11. Complaint No. CC006000000192946
1. Mr.Vaikuntam Srinivasan
2. Mrs. Janaki Srinivasan ....Complainants

Page 2 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

Along With
12. Complaint No. CC006000000193009
1. Mr. AbdulAbdullaRaoof
2. Mrs. Suleka Abdul Raoof ....Complainants
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

Along With
13. Complaint No. Cc006000000193014
1. Mr. Yadagiri Rao Jupally
2. Mrs. Jyothsna Kadaparthi ....Complainants
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

Along With
14. Complaint No. Cc006000000193069
1. Mr. Ramanathan Elayaperumal
2. Mrs. Rajalakshmiaka Kannathal Vairavan ....Complainants
Versus
1. Radius Estates And Developers Private Limited
2. MIG (Bandra) Realtors & Builders Private Limited ....Respondents

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800004889

Coram: Dr. Vijay Satbir Singh, Hon’ble Member – 1/

MahaRERA

Ld. Adv. Tanuj Lodha appeared for all the complainants.

Ld. Adv. Vibhav Krishna appeared for the respondent no. 1.
Ld. Adv. Sumeet Singh appeared for the respondent no. 2.

ORDER

( 30thApril 2021)
(After hearings through Video Conferencing)

Page 3 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

1. The complainants above named have filed these 14 separate

complaints seeking directions from MahaRERA to the respondent
to refund the amounts paid by the complainants along with
interest and compensation under sections 12 and 18 of the Real
Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘RERA’) with respect to the booking of their
respective flats in the respondent’s registered project known as
“Ten BKC” bearing MahaRERA project registration No.
P51800004889 situated at Bandra (E), Mumbai.

Hearings

2. These 14 complaints were filed in respect of same project and

same advocate has appeared in these complaints. Hence all
these complaints are clubbed together and kept for hearing on
14-10-2020 as per the Standard Operating Procedure dated 12th
June 2020 issued by MahaRERA for hearing of the complaints
through video conferencing. All the parties were issued prior
intimation of the said hearing and they were also informed to file
their respective written submissions. Accordingly, both the
parties appeared for the said hearing through their learned
advocates and have made their submissions. After hearing the
oral submissions made by both the parties, directions were given
to the respondents to file their replies on record of MahaRERA
within a period of two weeks and the complainants were also
allowed to file their rejoinders if any, in the subsequent week. In
the meantime the respondent no. 2 filed its reply on record of

Page 4 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

MahaRERA on 13-10-2020. Pursuant to the said directions, the

respondent no. 1 filed its reply on record of MahaRERA on
8-12-2020. The complainants have also filed their written
submissions / additional written submissions on record of
MahaRERA on 2-02-2021 and 16-02-2021.

3. Thereafter these complaints were scheduled for hearing on

18-02-2021, when both the parties appeared and made their
submissions. After hearing the arguments of both the parties,
the respondents were allowed to file their sur-rejoinder if any,
within a period of two weeks and the case was adjourned to
16-03-2021. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 filed its sur-
rejoinder on 10-03-2021 in a few of the complaints.

4. Thereafter these complaints were placed for final hearing on

16-03-2021, when the parties appeared and made their
respective arguments after which the hearing was concluded and
the order was reserved. However, after going through the
documents, to seek clarification on the issue of commencement
certificate, these complaints were again scheduled for hearing on
23-04-2021, when both the parties appeared and clarified the
said issue. Thereafter, the respondents were directed to file their
reply on the judgments cited by the complainants within a week
period. However, no such reply has been submitted by the
respondents on record of MahaRERA. Hence the MahaRERA heard
the arguments of both the parties and also perused the available
record.

Page 5 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

Pleadings of parties

5. The complainants have stated that they have filed the present
complaints seeking reliefs under sections 12 & 18 of RERA
towards refund the entire amounts paid by them along with
interest and compensation and have provided the following
information in their complaints in support of their claim.

Date
of
Total Name Commu
Fla Date of
Date Considerati Contribution of nicatio
t possessi Tot
Sr ofBookin onas per oftheallottee the ns of
Complaint No. No. on al
g“&” Booking “&” Amount Bank/ reimbu
“&”Name of “& as %
N Date of Form disbursed by Financi rsemen
complainants ” perAppli Pai
o Allotmen “&” Total financial al t by
Wi cation d
t Letter amount institution Institut the
ng form
paid ion Respon
dent
No.1.

CC00600000019
3009
130 12.04.20
2 17 5,45,88,570 29,06,841
Mr. Abdul 30.11.20 65 28.04.2
1 IBHFL
AbdullaRaoof& 19 % 017
W- 11.05.20 3,54,48,938 3,25,42,097
Mrs.
10 17
SulekaAbdulRaoo
f

CC00600000019
2760 150 30.04.20
1 17 6,09,50,200 32,15,123
30.11.20 64 20.06.2
2 Mr. IBHFL
19 % 017
AkileshEswaran W- 12.05.20 3,88,83,264 3,56,68,141
& Mrs. Pia 12 17
Mukherjee

CC00600000019
150 26.03.20
2759
2 17 7,91,92,000 42,55,874
30.11.20 63 09.04.2
3 IBHFL
Mrs.Gautam 19 % 017
W- 06.05.20 5,02,07,032 4,59,51,158
Bhargava& Mrs.
15 17
RidhiBhargava

Page 6 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

CC00600000019
100 07.07.20
2758
3 16 4,50,39,675 24,18,732
30.11.20 74 14.11.2
4 IBHFL
Mr. 19 % 016
W- 02.11.20 3,34,08,585 3,09,89,853
MadhusudhanaRe
9 16
ddy Upparlapalli

CC00600000019
3069
08.04.20
902
Mr. Ramanathan 17 5,45,88,570 28,79,547
30.11.20 64 03.04.2
5 Elayaperumal& IBHFL
W- 19 % 017
Mrs. Rajalakshmi 10.05.20 3,51,92,972 3,23,13,425
10
AKA 17
KannathalVairava
n

CC00600000019 150 23.03.20

2762 1 17 5,94,90,000 31,08,353
30.11.20 76 21.03.2
6 IBHFL
19 % 017
Mr. W- 04.04.20 4,53,31,164 4,22,22,811
SatishAgarwal 13 17

CC00600000019
130 14.03.20
2739
2 17 5,41,77,000 28,30,748
30.11.20 63 23.03.2
7 IBHFL
Mr. 19 % 017
W- 05.04.20 3,43,47,840 3,15,17,092
SajidSulaiman&M
11 17
rs. AyishaSajid

CC00600000019
170 04.04.20
2927
4 17 6,13,41,000 32,91,865
30.11.20 69 11.05.2
8 IBHFL
Mr. Siddharth 19 % 017
W- 04.05.20 4,22,98,450 3,90,06,585
Ankathil&
9 17
Mrs. KivyaGupta

CC00600000019 130 31.12.20

2741 3 16 4,47,48,975 25,38,135
30.11.20 75 21.02.2
9 IBHFL
19 % 017
Mr. W- 09.02.20 3,35,25,298 3,09,87,163
ShivashishMisra 9 17

CC00600000019
2946
13.10.20
904
16 7,90,71,675 41,56,019
1 Mr. 30.11.20 69 14.11.2
IBHFL
0 VaikuntamSriniva W- 19 % 016
05.11.20 5,47,43,554 5,05,87,535
san & 7
16
Mrs.
JanakiSrinivasan

CC00600000019
150 03.03.20
2926
2 17 5,41,77,000 28,30,749
1 30.11.20 63 21.03.2
IBHFL
1 Mr. 19 % 017
W- 05.04.20 3,42,94,044 3,14,63,295
Venkatakrishnan
11 17
Neelakantan

Page 7 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

110 28.03.20
CC00600000019
2 17 5,45,88,570 28,79,547
1 2928 30.11.20 64 28.03.2
IBHFL
2 19 % 017
W- 08.05.20 3,51,92,975 3,23,13,428
Mr. VipulMishra
10 17

CC00600000019
2742 230 13.01.20
3 17 4,54,61,850 23,87,884
1 30.11.20 69 14.03.2
Mr. IBHFL
3 19 % 017
VenkateshamNee W- 16.02.20 3,13,82,548 2,89,94,664
la& 9 17
Mrs. HarikaNeela

CC00600000019
3014
27.11.20
501
17 4,34,82,000 24,40,903
1 Mr. 30.11.20 71 27.11.2
DHFL
4 YadagiriRaoJupall W- 19 % 017
23.01.20 3,08,78,131 2,84,37,228
y& Mrs. 9
18
JyothsnaKadapar
thi

6. The complainants have stated that they have booked their

respective flats in the respondents’ project between the years
2016 and 2017. The said flats were booked with the respondent
no. 1. However, the respondent no.1 has failed to execute the
registered agreements for sale with them even though they have
paid 64% to 75% amount out of total consideration of their flats
to the respondent no. 1. The complainants further stated that the
project is a redevelopment project and the flats have been
booked by the complainants under the subvention scheme. As
per clause 8.2 of the allotment letters issued by the respondents
to the complainants, the date of possession was 30/11/2019.
Further, as per clause 8.3 of the said allotment letters, the
respondent was under obligation to refund the amounts paid by
the complainants upon failure to hand over the possession to the
complainants as per the date promised. However, the respondent
no.1 has neither handed over the possession of the flats of the

Page 8 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

complainants nor have refunded the amounts paid by the

complainants as per the allotment letters. The complainants also
stated that the respondent no. 1 has however, entered into a
tripartite agreements for the subvention scheme with the
complainants on the dates specified in the aforesaid table
wherein the financial institutions viz. India Bulls Housing Finance
Ltd and Dewan Housing Finance Limited were parties. However,
the respondent no.1 failed to adhere to its responsibility to pay
the pre EMI to the said financial institutions and thereby
contravened the comfort letters issued by it. Hence on these
grounds also they are seeking refund of the amounts paid by
them. Since the respondent no.1 failed to handover possession of
their flats on the agreed dates of possession mentioned in the
allotment letters, the complainants issued letters to the
respondent no. 1 in the month of December 2019, which have
been ignored by the respondent no. 1. The complainants further
stated that as per the MahaRERA registration, the respondents
have extended the date of completion to 06/06/2022, which is
not acceptable to them. To support their contentions, they have
also relied upon various judgments passed by the MahaRERA,
Hon’ble MahaREAT as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
support of their claims. Hence, the complainants have sought
refund of the amounts paid by them along with interest and
compensation under sections 18 of the RERA. The complainants
have also prayed for cost of these complaints.

7. The respondent no.1 on the other hand has resisted the claim of
the complainants by filing the reply on record of MahaRERA and

Page 9 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

has at the outset denied all the allegations and the statements
made by the complainants. The respondent no. 1 has further
stated that it has not violated any provisions of the RERA and
hence the complainants should not be entitled to any reliefs from
the MahaRERA. The respondent no. 1 has further stated that the
complaints should be dismissed for various reasons such as;
non-joinder of parties, failure to imp-lead the financial institution
as party to the complaints and hence the complaints must be
dismissed. The respondent no. 1 has further stated that the
complaints are devoid of any cause of action since, the booking
forms as well as the allotment letters are valid and hence the
complainants should not be granted any refund of payments. The
respondent no. 1 has further stated that since the allotment
letters have not been terminated, the complaints are premature.
The respondent no. 1 has further stated that it has called upon
the complainants several times to execute the registered
agreements for sale. However, the complainants have never
come forward to execute the same. The respondent no. 1 has
further stated that as per the MahaRERA registration, the date of
completion is 06/06/2022. However, due to the pandemic
induced lockdown in the country, the date of completion has
been further extended by six months to 06/12/2022 which
means that the MahaRERA registration is a valid registration. The
respondent no. 1 has further stated that it has entered into the
tripartite agreements with the complainants and the
complainants were aware of the disbursal of the loan amount to
the respondent no. 1 and the complainants have never
challenged the same. The respondent no. 1 has further stated

Page 10 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

that it has also paid the pre-EMI for under the subvention
scheme up to January 2020 and the entire amount received from
the complainants has been used for the construction of the said
project. The respondent no. 1 has further stated that the
complainants are investors in the said project and since they had
never raised any protest with regarding to the execution of the
agreements for sale as well as the disbursement of the loan, they
cannot be entitled to any reliefs. The respondent no. 1 has
further stated that the complainants have suppressed various
facts from the MahaRERA such as the letter informing them
about the registration of the project with MahaRERA and have
come to MahaRERA with unclean hands and have abused the
process of law. The respondent no. 1 has further stated that due
to the lockdown declared by the government owing to the covid
19 pandemic, the project was affected and even though some
relaxations were granted, the project has come to a standstill
due to unavailability of staff. Hence it must be taken as a force
majeure event. It has further stated that on account of Covid-19
pandemic a force majeure event and the resultant lockdown,
vide certificate dated 10.5.2020, the time for completion of the
project was suo moto extended by MahaRERA by a period of 6
months till 6thDecember, 2022. It has further stated that the
complainants had without coercion purchased the said flats and
the details of the said project has been hosted on MahaRERA
website since August, 2017 and therefore the complainants are
deemed to have knowledge of all the details of the said project
and cannot now allege that it has contravened the provisions of
RERA.

Page 11 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

8. The respondent no. 1 has further stated that the respondents

are facing issues due to the disputes with the middle-income
groups since the project is a redevelopment project and the case
is pending before the commercial arbitration petition no. LD-
VC-80-2020 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
Hence, the respondent no. 1 prayed for dismissal of these
complaints.

9. The respondent no. 2 has also resisted the claim of the

complainants by filing the reply on record of MahaRERA and has
also at the outset denied all the allegations and the statements
made by the complainants. The respondent no. 2 further stated
that the current project is a redevelopment project consisting of
15 Wings for the MIG CHSL and it has been appointed by the
society as developer. The respondent no. 2 further stated that
the respondent no. 1 has been undertaking certain obligations in
the said project wherein the respondent no. 1 was allocated
various free sale flats to sell and receive the entire realizations
there from. The respondent no. 2 further stated that the flats in
the complaints have been booked by the respondent no.1 and in
all the complaints, the correspondence has been made with the
respondent no. 1. As it has not received any consideration from
the complainants, it has no liability toward any complainants and
hence the complainants should not be granted any reliefs against
the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 also stated that the
respondent no. 1 was supposed to pay rent at Rs. 85 per sq. ft.
in case of force majeure event. However, it has paid rent at Rs.

Page 12 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

300 per sq. ft. up to 16/03/2020 and thereafter at the above

rate. Hence the society sought termination of the respondent no.
1 which was disputed by the respondent no. 2 and it has not
invoked the arbitration clause. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court
has by its order dated. 26/05/2020, issued a status quo and
respondent no. 2 has therefore sought dismissal of these
complaints against it.

Findings and reasons

10. The MahaRERA has examined the arguments advanced by both

the parties and also perused the record available. In the present
case, by filing these complaints, the complainants are seeking
relief of refund along with interest and compensation for
violation of mainly section 18 of the RERA.

11. On perusal of record, it appears that the complainants are

allottees and have booked their respective flats with the
respondent No.1, who is co-promoter having area sharing in
this project, registered by the respondent no.2. By virtue of a
joint development agreement, the respondent has been
allotted a few flats in this project and it has allotted the same
to these complainants by issuing allotment letters on various
dates. The record further shows that the said bookings have
been done under the provisions of MOFA as well as the RERA.
Further after commencement of RERA on 1-05-2017, this
project being ongoing project has been registered with

Page 13 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

MahaRERA. Hence, all provisions of RERA and the Rules and

Regulations made there under are applicable to this project.

12. With regard to the contention raised by the respondent about

non-joinder of financial institutions as necessary parties, the
MahaRERA is of the view that the complainants have
purchased their flats from the respondent no. 1, who is also
promoter having area sharing in this project and admittedly,
the monies have been paid to the respondent no.1 and the
allotment letters have been issued by the respondent no.1
only. Hence, the MahaRERA is of the view that there is no need
to join the financial institution as party respondents to these
complaints.

13. The MahaRERA has also noticed that the complainants have
joined the promoter who has registered this project with
MahaRERA viz the respondent no. 2 as a party in these
complaints. However the respondent no. 2 is not a party to any
agreement arrived between these complainants and the
respondent no.1. Moreover, the complainants are not seeking
any specific reliefs against the respondent no. 2 promoter /
society. Hence, the MahaRERA is of the view that no reliefs
could be granted to these complainants against the respondent
no.2.

14. It is an admitted fact that the complainants have paid around

64% to 75% amount to the respondent no. 1 themselves and

Page 14 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

through financial institution under subvention scheme. The

complainants have contended that they have booked the said
flats based on the representations made by the respondent
about the subvention scheme that they need not pay any pre-
EMI till possession. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 issued
comfort letters to these complainants stating that it will pay the
pre-EMI to the financial institutions till possession. However, it
has failed to fulfil its commitments. Thereby the respondent no.
1 has contravened the its own comfort letters issued in favour
of the complainants. The tripartite agreements were also
executed between the respondent no.1, the complainants, and
the financial institutions. As per the said agreements, though
the respondent no. 1 was liable to pay the Pre-EMI till
possession of the said flats by the complainants, it stopped
paying the same from the month of February 2020. Therefore,
the complainants have sought withdrawal from the project.

15.In this regard the provision of section 12 has to be perused. The

same reads as under:

“12. Where any person makes an advance or a

deposit on the basis of the information contained in
the notice advertisement or prospectus, or on the
basis of any model apartment, plot or building, as
the case may be, and sustains any loss or damage by
reason of any incorrect, false statement included
therein, he shall be compensated by the promoter in
the manner as provided under this Act:

Page 15 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

Provided that if the person affected by such

incorrect, false statement contained in the notice,
advertisement or prospectus, or the model
apartment, plot or building, as the case may be,
intends to withdraw from the proposed project, he
shall be returned his entire investment along with
interest at such rate as may be prescribed and the
compensation in the manner provided under this
Act.”

16. The aforesaid provisions of section 12 provide that the allottee

is entitled to seek refund of the entire amount along with
interest and compensation if the allottee makes any deposit on
the basis of the information contained in the notice /
advertisement and he sustains any loss or damages due to
such false information. However, in the present case, the
complainants have alleged that based on the comfort letters
issued by the respondent no.1 whereby it has agreed to pay
the pre-EMI to the financial institutions, they continued the
booking of their flats in the project.

17. Thereafter, though the respondent no.1 agreed to reimburse

the pre-EMI paid by the complainants, it has failed and
neglected to pay the same and thereby avoided its
responsibility to pay the Pre-EMI till the date of possession as
per the agreed terms. Hence, the complainants are seeking
withdrawal from the project. The MahaRERA feels that there

Page 16 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

was misrepresentation made by the respondent no.1, which

amounts to violation of section 12 of the RERA.

18. In addition to this, the MahaRERA has noticed that in the

present case, a few of the complainants have booked their
flats under the provisions of MOFA and some have booked
their flats under RERA regime. Under these legislations, the
promoter was not entitled to accept more than 20% amount
out of total consideration under MOFA and 10% under RERA,
without first executing a registered agreement for sale with the
allottee. However, in the present case, the respondent no. 1
has accepted more than the permissible amount towards the
said considerations from the complainants and also from the
financial institution, without registering the agreements for
sale. The said act is in violation of provision of section 8 of the
MOFA and section 13 of the RERA. The respondent No.1 has
merely contended that it has called upon the complainants for
execution of the agreement for sale. However, the
complainants have failed and neglected to execute the same.
Here, it’s pertinent to go through provisions of section 13 (1)
which is reproduced below.

“13. (1) A promoter shall not accept a sum more than

ten per cent of the cost of the apartment, plot, or
building as the case may be, as an advance payment or
an application fee, from a person without first entering
into a written agreement for sale with such person and

Page 17 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

register the said agreement for sale, under any law for
the time being in force”.

19. It’s clear that the respondent no.1 has failed to comply with
its statutory liability cast upon it under section 13 of the RERA.
If the complainants were not ready and willing to execute the
agreement for sale, in that event, it should have taken
appropriate steps/action at the relevant time against the
complainants or refunded their money by cancelling their
bookings. However, no such steps seem to have been taken by
the respondent no. 1 promoter. It shows that the respondent
no. 1 has violated the provision of section 13 of the RERA.
Obviously, the allottees are feeling cheated after having
invested their hard earned money into the project.

20. In addition to this, the MahaRERA has also noticed that the
respondent no. 1 has violated the provisions of section 18 of
the RERA, since it has failed to handover possession of the
flats to the complainants on the agreed date of possession
mentioned in the booking application form i.e. 30-11-2019,
which can be construed as agreement between the parties as
defined under section 2 (c) of the RERA. The contention of the
respondent no. 1 that the complaints are premature as per the
date of completion mentioned on MahaRERA webpage i.e.
31-12-2022 is yet to come, has no substance, as the RERA
cannot rewrite the date of possession mentioned in any
agreement arrived at between the parties as held by the

Page 18 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

Hon’ble High Court at Judicature at Bombay in the matter of

Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd (Supra). It shows that
the respondent No. 1 has violated the provision of section 18
of the RERA. Hence the complainants are entitled to seek
refund under section 18 of the RERA.

21. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case,

the following order is passed:

Order

a) The complainants are allowed to withdraw from the project.

The respondent no.1 is directed to refund the entire amount
paid by the complainants along with interest as prescribed
under the provisions of RERA and the relevant Rules made
thereunder i.e., SBI’s Marginal Cost Lending Rate plus 2%.

b) The respondent no. 1 is also directed to settle all the issues

with the financial institutions separately regarding the
repayment of the money paid by them on behalf of the
complainants.

c) The respondent no. 1 is also directed to pay an amount of

Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the penalty to MahaRERA as per
the provision of section 61 of the RERA for violation of
section 13 of the RERA;

Page 19 of 20
 Complaint Nos. CC006000000192739, CC006000000192741 and Others.

22. With the above directions, all these 14 complaints stand

disposed of.

23. The certified copy of the order will be digitally signed by

concerned Legal Assistant of MahaRERA and it is permitted to
send the same to both the parties by e-mail.

(Dr Vijay Satbir Singh)

Member – 1/MahaRERA

Page 20 of 20