Builders in Maharashtra to be careful of giving unreasonable possession dates
After MahaRERA came to force, builders gave extended completion deadlines in order to escape punitive action in case of non-delivery of the apartments.cities Updated: Jun 10, 2018 23:55 IST
Builders giving extended deadlines for possession to the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) will now have to be more careful about making unreasonable claims. Recently, the regulator in a case had a property site physically inspected by a MahaRERA technical consultant and ordered the builder to bring forward the possession date by 34 months.
The consultant who visited the site noted that 90% of the work was completed and it would require the builder just one year to finish the remaining work. Hence, MahaRERA revised the completion date to November 11, 2019 from its earlier given date of September 1, 2022.
The complaint in the case, Sarvapriya Leasing Private Limited filed the issue against Srushti Sangam Developers which is redeveloping a property called Maulick Enclaves at Chembur. Sarvapriya had paid the developer ₹4.53 crore to purchase six shops and two offices in the project and executed an agreement on January 1, 2007. Sarvapriya had challenged the completion date given by the developer to MahaRERA, saying that it was a deliberate attempt by the developer to deny the purchaser its legitimate rights.
The developer Shrusti Sangam argued that the Sarvapriya was not a genuine buyer but an investor, and hence cannot take advantage of the provisions of MahaRERA. It said that the project was delayed due to the heritage notification issued by the state government and also the litigation between the landowner and the collector.
The MahaRERA, while upholding the rights of the complainant, directed its technical consultant to visit the site and report on the present status of the project and the time it would take to be completed.
The team visited the place and in its report noted that 90% of the work had been completed and the balance work would require just one year to be finished.
According to Sanjay Chaturvedi who represented the complainant, this will set a precedent. “Builders will now have to be cautious while giving deadlines in the future. Physical verification instead of relying on the builder’s architect’s report will be a good deterrent as MahaRERA will get the exact status of the project,” said Chaturvedi.
After MahaRERA came to force, builders gave extended completion deadlines in order to escape punitive action in case of non-delivery of the apartments.