MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE

RERA Act
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER
NoATO06000000000017

Manit SIngh Dhallwal

R/o. B-901,
Marigold Meridian,
Lake Road, Bhandup (West) .Appellan/s
Mumbal 400 078

Vs.
JVPO Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Yari Road,
Panchratna, Parnchmarg, Off .Respondent/s
Versova, Andhert (), Mumbai 400 061
No.AT0060000000000422

Naim Karmaruddin Shaikn

R/o C-302. 3 floor,
Fressla-I, Navagaon,
Dahisar (West), Appellant/s
Mumbai 400 D68.

V/s.

M/s. J.V.P.D. Propertes Put. Ltd.

Panchratna, Panchmarg, Off Yari Road,
Andheri (w), Mumbai 400 061. . Respondent/s
Versova,
No.ATOO60o000000002z

Rafesh Joseph D'souza..

R/c. Green View, Wagholl,
Behind Wageshwari Temple,
Post Nirmal, Tal Vasa: Dist.
Thane.
Appellant s
V/s.
M/S. J.V.P.D. Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Panchratna, Panchmarg, Off Yarl Road,
Versova, Andher (W), Mumbai 400 061. .. Respondent/s
 Na.ATO06000000000031

Alok Sneh
R/O. A-902,
Sunsrlshtl Complex,
Saki Vhar Road,
Near Giunt Kripa Hotel, . Appellant/s
Povral, Mumbai 400 072.

V/s.
M/s. J.V.P.D. Propertles Pvt. Ltd.
Panchratna, Panchmarg, Of Yarl Road,
Versova, Andheri (W). Mumbai 400 061. Respondent/s

No.ATOO6O00000000029

Sushil Kumar Chaudhary

R/O A-204, Vimal Deep
Sarvodaya Paradise, Behind Balaji Hospita,
Mira-Binayander Road,
Mire Road (East), Thane 401 107 Appellant/s

V/s.
M/s. J.v.P.D. Properties Pvt, Ltd.
Panchratna, Panchmarg, Off Yarl Road,
Versova, Andheri (w), Mumbal 400 061. Respondent/s

No.ATOO6000000000026
AIt Nathuram Sagvekar
R/o. 105-Mahavir Gaurav,
M.D. Kenl Marg, Nahur (East),
Mumbel 400 042. .. Appellant/s

V/s.
M/s. J.V.P.D. Propertles Pvt. Ltd.
Panchratna, Panchmarg, Off Yari Road,
Versova, Andheri (w), Mumbal 400 061. .Respondent/s
 No.ATO06000000000098

Prasad Vthoba Vengurlekar

R/o.124. Om Sau C.H.S.
Indira Nagar, Meghwadi,
logeshwari (East), Appellant/s
Mumbai 400 060.
V/s.
M/s. J.v.P.D. Propertles Pvt. Ltd.
Panchretna, Panchmarg, Off Yari Road, .Respondent/s
Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbat 400 061.
No.ATOO6000000000g99

Atul Pant
R/o. 223/224 Kadambari Society.
Gulmohar Road No.6,
J.V.P.D. Vile Parle (West).
Appellant/s
Mumbai 400 042.

V/s
M/s. J.v.P.0. Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Panchratna, Panchmarg, Off Yari Road, .Respondentýs
Mumbai 400 061.
Versova, Andheri (W),
No.ATO06000000000109

Mahesh uttiyavar
R/O. 1002 Panchavat
A Wing, Panchashrusti Cornplex
.. Appellant/s
Chandivali, Mumbar 400 072

Vs.
M/s. J.V.P.D. Prepertles Pvt. Ltd.
Panchretna, Panchmarg, Off Yari Road,
Versova, Andheri (), Mumbai 400 061 .. Respordent/s

No.ATOO6000000000101

Siba Prasad Dash

R/o. A-2/6-5, MIllennaum Tovier,
Sector-9, Sanpada,
Navi Mumbai - 400 705. Appellant/s

V/s
M/s. 3.v.P.D. Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Panchratra, Panchmarg, Off Yari Roac,
Versove, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 061. . Respondent/s
 N o A T O O G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3

Vandana Yadav
R/o. A-902, Sunsrlshti Complex,
Saki Vihar Road,
Nenr Guru Kripa Hotel,
Powal, Mumbal 400 072. . Appellant/s

M/s. J.V.P.D. Properties Pvt. Ltd

Panchratna, Panchmarg, Off Yari Road,
Versova, Andherl (w), Mumbai 400 06. .Respondent/s

No.ATO06000000g00104
Colonel Tej Kohli
R/o. 604, Deep Apartments,
Oshiwara, Andherl (West),
Mumbai 400 053.
Appellank/s
V/s.
M/s. J.v.P.D. Propertles Pvt. Ltd.
Panchratna, Panchmarg, Off Yari Road,
Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbal 400 061. .Respondent/s

No.ATOOG00000000010G
Dr. 5ukhdev Singh Gl
R/o. V.P.0.,Room Tahsl,
Jagrapn Dist.
Ludhiana,
Punjab 142 026. .Appellant/s
V/s.
M/s. J.V.P.D. Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Panchratna, Panchmarg, Off Yari Road,
Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 061. .Respondent/s
 Kushal Sen No.ATOO600000000010Z
R/a. D-702, Lodha Paradise,
Oiympia, Majwada,
Thane (West),
Maharashtra - 400 601.
.Appellant/s
V/s.
M/s. J.V.P.D. Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Panchratna, Panchmarg, Off Yai Road,
Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbal 40O 061 Respondent/s

No.ATOO6000000000108

Sheetal Jitesh Zanwar

Ro. Naswala Chowk,
Malkapur Di_t.
Buldhana-443 101 Appeilan/s

Vis.
M/s.J.V.P.D. Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Panchratna, Panchmarg, Off Yard Road,
Respandent/s
Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400
061. ..

Adv. Faheen Shah for Appellants in al! the 15 appeals.

Pvt. Ltd. in ail the 15 appeais.
Adv. A.K, Singh, Adv. for M/s. VPD Properties

J.
CORAM :Hon'ble Shri K. U. CHANDIWAL,
Heard on :12 April, 2018
Dictated/Pronounced on: 12t" April, 2018
Transcribed on: 13 April, 2018

:0RAL JUDGMENT

Heard fnaliy.
order dated 29 Decernber, 2017
have assaled cormmon
1. The 15 con:plainants MahaRERA, whereby the
& Adjudicating Officer,
recorded by the Ld. Member Sale
of want of inter se Agreemaat far
are rejected on the graund The Project of
complaints and the Respondents (Promoter).
between the Appellants (allottees)
with MahaRERA Registraticn
no. PS18000LI181
the Prormoter is duly registered
 fa
released
payments
Alotment, has SerenirY
Letter of
allottee based on
to be khown as '3hagtaniof Village
o r the burlding Ward
praposed restdential No. 63A/5 and 640, 'S Letter to each Cr
s e of iat in land bearing CTS
of Allotment
C o n s t r u c t e d on
Kurla, Murmbaf.
The date of issue Allotment letter
sgned y
rndaz, Taluka, in the printed controversy
however the contents purpose of
e allottee differs, of the promoter are identical. For the (of Manjit singn) a d
d signatory appeal, an alotment
letter dated
31.1.2014
tne respective taken note of.
27.9.2014 Naim Shalkh) are referred and
(of
lhe record including
3. admitted posltion as neflected from the arguments and hat the
Te demorstrate
the Promoter to some of the alottees
CommunCation by llustrate that the promoter
The e-mail communicatlon
e c t has nottoeven started.
on wlth the project. There is no
controversy that each o
ne
wish go
does not flat agreed to be purchased
Trom

alottee has relcased 50% of the anount of the

the Promoter.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant allottee says that the Ld. Member 8& Adjudicating
erred in drawing a wrong concluslon in respect of interpretation
of allotrent
Oficer
eterby sayin1g that the allotment letters the tirst stage followed by Agreement or
obliterated as t s a
Sale. He says, the Preamble of the RERA should not be
we'fare leglslaton and its paramount aspect is prótection to the consumer
incorrect
According to him the interpretation glven to Section 18 (1) (a) of RERA, is
It was the advertsement campalgn of the Promoter which has lured the alBotees
and induced them to purchese the flat and at such time the Promnoterhas edooTec
to decelve with frauduient representations. To stress his point, the Ld. Counsel for

appellant has placed relance to the judgement of Deihi High Court decided on
the
2 0 December, 2008 In the matter of Shikha Blra v/s. Ambience Developers. He
nas also relied to the judgernent reported in 2016 (1) Mh.L Page 494 In the matter
of Plus Varghese v/s. Neptune Ventures decided by Bombay High Court
allottee has to
S. The Ld. Counsel for the Promoter canvassed that the complainant
of
establish his case Individually. There is no case of vlolation to Section 18,19,31
MahaRERA was
RERA. The date of completion of project while registering It with
shown to be 2025, even otherwise it was 42 months after obtalning construct:on
no false picture was projected
permission from the competent authorities. He says,
To stress his point, Ld. Counsel dealt
Everything was disclosed to the allottees. clause
with the letter of Allotment and In particular
6,9,10 thereof. He reiterates
held
his case and the Adjudicator has rightly
that the complainant was not clear of encumbrances af
attracted. He points that the
Section 19(3) of RERA is not
disclosed appropriately, by Promoter
fAnancial assistance of Xander s
renorted
both the td. Counsel, perusal of record coupted with the
6. After hearing
Judgements,following points arise for my consideration:
Sele ?
want of a Agreerment for
) Whether the complalnt faids for

What Orders ?
 7.
My findings to above polnts is
h e complaint wil
not fall for want of
/ he Order dated
Agreement for saie
the Ld. 2g Dec. 2017 alls for interference and matter
Adjudicating Officer, MahaRERA. is
rand- ded

REASONSs
e r e is no contest that RERA in its Preamble disclosed to be velfare legisiation to
Eguiate proceedings between a Promoter and the flat purchaser/ aliottæe.

h e Hon'ble Lordships of Bombay High Court in the Group Writ Petiions, in

Rricir,Writ Petition No. 2737 of 2017 decided on 6th December 2017 in
Neelkamal v/s. Unlon of India, have observed The Act encompassed with its
Denerical provisions to ail classes who are affected by the illegalites" "RERA Act
reates to he development of buldings/ projects and sale of fiats tnerein. The
Stature does not interfere with any ownership rights of the owner or developer of
the property. RERA regulates the deveiopment of Real Estate Project in respect of
constructions which are not completed wherein Occupation Certificate have not
been obtained on the date cf commencement of provisions of RERA."

In para 108 it is observed, "the Authority could exercise It discretion whiie dealing
with the cases under Sections 6,7,8 read wlth 37. It was further odserved that
harmonlous and balanced construction of the provisions sha! suffice the purpose.

In para 109 It is observed "The Authority shall examine each case in compelling
circumstances and reasons for a Promoter in failing to complete the project
"Authoritles Tribunal can look Into individual cases and mould heir reliefs
accordingly."
0 . Set. 18 (1){a) of RERA indicate "In accordance with terms of Agreement for Sale cr
as the case maybe, duly cornpleted by the date specified therein, the term "as the
case may be", necessarily interdict to the agreement which is subject of
Controversy. It means, depending on drcumstances. The statement in the Section
equally applles to two or more alternatlves. There cannot be a strict user of
terminofogy of Agreement for sale necessarily to be entered into and for want of
the same, the unfortunate ailottees to suffer.

11. There are cases where Suits for specific performance are filed based on oral
agreements or ora! terms and such suits even at its apex stage were no: thron
way oniy on the ground of projection of oral terms. Now adverting to the present
SCenario, the partles are in agreement having a allotment ietter referred to zbove
which stipulates descripton of the property to be purchased by incividual al'cte,
description of the payment schedule and the total cost, the necessary requisition of
permissions, obligation to complete the crojects, and getting clanty to the tütie
 The cumulative effect of Letter of Alotment wit not be short of branding t to be
the terms agreed upon betwcen the parties.

A 2 . sec. 2(¢) of RERA deals with Agreement for Sale neans an agreement eritered i a
eveen the promoter and the allottee.
It is only the difference of nomenclature.
Cine
may brand it as letter of allotment or one may brand It as an
Tnay brand tt_as provislonal agreement or deflne It is an acceptance Agreement or Gre
However, it will not diBute the terms settled between the parties of a lerter
seller of
property and price agreed upon in purchaser
schedule, and detaits of the properiy
13.Sec. 2 (d) of RERA
Contemplates definitlon of 'allottee' vwhich includes in relaticn
the real estate project allotted or soBd whether as freehold or leasehoid
otnerwise transferred by promoter and includes the persons who 9
Said altotment., Broadly speaking the tem 'allottee, subsequentiy De
etter of atotment meets the put in juxtapositicn witn t n e
RERA It is not the case ofrequirement of Agreement as Indicated In Sec. 2{¢) *
required details. Promoter that Letter of Aliotment does rot meat
On the
Contractual contrary, the Promoter has not raised
relatons, nor agitated that complaints otjection
regular Agreement for Sale. sans consideration for want

4.Basically, an agreement is meeting of minds

even without
Agreement is a form of contract legal cbligations. T
schedule, clarity cf title, and as to relating to offer,
acceptance, consideration, tme
incidentally is couched in such a fashionessence
to
of time. The Aliotment ietter
Letter of Allotrment will not
scuttle
incorporate requisite terms. Hence
all
rlghts of Allottees.
15. In the Judgement of
Hon ble Deihi
of letter in respect of allotment High Court the polnt raised was about
of issuanc
shop to the purchaser which specified charts
amount payable by purchaser in of
Instalments, When a suit for specific
was filed by the shop purchaser it was
objected performanc
to by the selter for want of ä
Agreement for Saie. In para 20 of the said Judgement Honble
observed "Faced with overwhelming admitted Lordships hav
facts,
technical pleas that allotment agreement is an
the defendant has resorted tn
agreement to enter Into an
agreement In form of 'commerclat space buyer's agreement' and therefore nt
enforceable and the allotment agreement, it was agreed,
cannot be legally
specificaly enforced in a Court of law. The Hon'ble Lordship has expiarned
ar
vanous
sitLiatians and the cffect of formal letter or formal
egreement which contemplate
entire terms betwcen the parties. It vas
again quoted in para 22. *The lette
acceptence of the offer made to the plaintiff by the defendant. tt rcfers to
allotment of a particular shop to the plaintiff, instalment plan for making paymerr
of farr
Dy tne plalntiff and performance obligations as
contained in the applcation
and 'commercial space buyers' agreement. The plaintiff and defendants were uncer
an obligation to compty with the terms contained in the application form anc the
'COmmercial space buyers' agreement

16. In the lnstant case, nothing was let to be negotiated and settled for future Tems
were agreed and Letter of Alatrment was read and understood. It was a certair
and a concluded bargain. A concluded contract therefore had come into existence
 17. In tne
matter of Pus
purchase.
urilaterally
Te
plaintiffVarghese the
had pa:d controversy was in
ne increased certain
plantiff ctainmed the price of the suitinstalments for respect of
the Mat.
Parues which is actedspecifc pertormancefatof which the Plalntiff The
Agreement
defend of flat
had not ant na
Cneques. According to theupon by both the the initial
partles. agreement accepl
2S June 2009 had defence ralsed, the Initial The
payments betwee
were
ne
payment nothing to do with
schedule the contract with the made Oy
Case in of the printed terms and conditionplaintift d01ed
ara 27 "In thls
case
defendant nos. 1 to 4, It was as sno
Complied by not the terms and observed in the sai
contract between theplaintiff, but also actedconditlons
he oniy the in the
payment
GIong with the terms partles under upan by defendant nos.1 chart are
and conditlons of thethe alotment leter, which to 4 ard
payment chart woutd bind the must De ta
8.
The aforesaid discusslon parties
Or the
aBottees / orlginal coupled with etfect of Section 18(1{a) of
Adjudicating Officer, complalnants squarety comes withln
MahaRERA. RERA the t e
the jurisdiction orcase
L.
One of the contentions
raised was that the
Simpy qUoted Sections complaina'who has
18,19, and 31 which has io
to establis: his
case
promoter. t is tried to be enforceability against th2
promoter. argued that no false picture was projected ty the

20. WEh the assistance of both the td.

Counsels, I have adverted to
of project with MahakERA tthat the project did not commence till 31the Registratuon
There was no construction. The name of August, 2017.
alf the directors was not disclose, the
encumbrance of only Xander was inforrmed
under ftigation frem Xander for without disclosing that the praject was
recovery of sums advanced by the financer to the
prcmioter.

21. brochure which is annexed highlighted by the Ld. Counsel for the
The
indicate that 300 projects have been compteted by the appellant
promoter however while
registering he says none of the project ls commenced nor completed. I do not wish
to adveT to the argumant that since
inception the èppsoaçhh of the
dishonest and hence he succeeded in drafting unilateral terms and promoter
was
conditions of the
Allotnent Letter which according to the altottee is
entirely unfair, unjust,
inoperative, objectionable and one- slded.
22. The points of entitlerment to the refund of the angunt with interest ocherviise for
breach of terrms of Sections 4, 12, 18 19(4) are left to be dealt with
Adjudicating Officer based on the materiel that the partles would advanceby the Ld.
at the
time of argument or othenvise, I have refrained from
further dissecting the facts
though repeated reference was given by both the Ld. Counse's and to sorme extent
is indicated ln their submissions hereinbefcre.
23. In totality, I hold that the compBaint of the alottees wlil
not fail for want for
Agreement for Sale and the eompBaints are malntainabie.

24. Points are answered accordngty.

 ORDER:
1. The 15 appeal of the alfottees are alilowed. The common arder cated 29
December, 2017 is set aside. The anetter is remanded to the Ld. Adjudicatirg
offcer, MahaRERA to be decided äfresh on merits.
2. The Respondent to pay cost of Rs.15000/- to each of the allottee/appelant
within 30 days.
3. The parties to the appeal / to the orlginal complaint shall appear before the i
Member and Adjudicating Officer on 23rd Aprl, 2018.

Dictated and pronounced in open Court today.

Chhi

Place: Mumbal (K. U. CHAND*WAL, J.)

Dated: 12th March, 2018 President,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
Mumbai
& Tft. Maharashtra Reaf Estate
Appellate Tribunal, (MahaRERA),
Mumbal