The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MAHARERA) provided relief to the 64 allottees of the real estate project by instructing the developer to pay compensation for delayed projects in three years. The RERA acted on the complaint drafted by the 64 complainants for the delayed possession.
Two complainants Ravi Kumar Nair and Emmanuel Pattern were present on the behalf of 64 allottees and filed the written submissions regarding their grievances.
64 allottees had booked flats in the Avaj Residency in Panvel after going on with an agreement with the Avaj Builders and developers pvt ltd. Nair Said, “Many allottees in the project have paid 90 percent of their booked flats and the possession date was mentioned on Dec’14”.
The complainants also mentioned that the developer has not been able to handover the possession of the flats on the given date and it’s been 3years from the promised date. According to the RERA section 18, the builder is liable to pay the interest to the buyers and buyers are demanding same for that.
Advocate of the Developer Mr Mayur Shikhare argues from the developer’s behalf that the reason for delay in project is due to changes in the planning by the authority, restrictions on extraction of sand and demonetization which resulted in the poor sale of flats.
Shikhare Said, “The collector of Raigad given the permission to the project in 2011 and the new planning authority, Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area(NAINA) came into existence under City Industrial Development Corporation(CIDCO) in 2013 and the related permissions delayed the project”. The abovementioned reason leads to the delay in the projects and he would require occupancy certificate from the planning authority.
But, according to the RERA bench, as per the examined permissions and certificates, the developer was not able to explain the particular permission because of which project was delayed by three years. “According to the Authority, the developer had sufficient time for application and permissions as required by the planning authority and there was hardly any reason for delay. The other reason stated by the developer doesn’t satisfy the grounds of the RERA act”.