Housing regulator orders builder to refund ₹7.1 crore to 21 Mumbai homebuyers for delay

It is one of the largest payouts since Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority was formed; case involves a housing project in Santacruz

In one of the largest payouts since the inception of the housing regulator, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRera) has ordered JVPD Properties Private Limited to refund ₹7.10 crore along with a 15 % interest to 21 homebuyers.

HT PHOTO

MahaRera, which recently completed one year, cracked the whip after JVPD had failed to execute a project in Santacruz.

This refund was granted on the basis of the allotment letter given by the builder, instead of an agreement of sale.

The case refers to the 21 homebuyers who had booked flats in a housing project, Bhagtani Serenity, at Santacruz between 2013 and 2015. They received a letter from the builder on July 24, 2017, saying the builder could not execute the project owing to the delay in various approvals.

The families argued that the builder promised to complete the project and collected money from them.

JVPD Properties Private Limited contradicted the complainants, who, it claimed, were investors, not end users, and hence were not entitled to file complaints. In addition, the complainants as investors did not insist on sale agreements, the firm argued.

However, MahaRERA refused to entertain the arguments of the builder. “Only because the complainants have deposited the amount with the respondents, it does not mean that they become investors... The respondents have not produced any evidence to prove that the complainants are in the habit of investing their funds in real estate projects for earning profit,” read the order.

“The respondents have not paid back the amount of the complainants, and therefore the complainants are entitled to get the interest at the rate of 15 % per annum ...” stated the order.

The builder was not available for comment.

According to advocate Tanuj Lodha, who represented the flatbuyers, MahaRera has upheld the right of allottees even though they didn’t have an agreement for sale. “This judgment will provide relief to other homebuyers who do not have an agreement for sale despite having paid substantial amounts,” he said.