BEFORE THE

MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

MUMBAI

COMPLAINT NO: CC006000000000391

RAJU BANA ... Complainant.Versus

KAILAS PATIL ... Respondent.

MahaRERA Regn: P51700006977

Coram: Hon'ble Shri B.D. KAPADNIS.

05th October 2017

Final Order

The complainant has filed this complaint r/ s. 18 Real Estate

(Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (for short, RERA) for gettingcompensation on account of the respondent's failure to give the possession

of his booked flat no. 503 in the respondent's project'Kailas Fleights'situated at Kalwa, Dist. Thane.

2. The complainant contends that the respondent is the proprietor ofMs. Trinity Construction company which launched the aforesaid project.The respondent executed the agreement of sale of the said flat on 17 .17.201'1,

and agreed to give the possession of the said flat within 18 months fromthe date of agreement. However, for one reason or the other he avoided tocomplete the construction of the building and give possession of thebooked flat. Hence the complainant claims a compensation amounting toRs. 10 lac towards the house rent of last five years and the mentalharassment. He also claims the future house rent at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-per month till he gets the possession.

3. Respondent admits that the possession of the flat has not been givenlill the date. He has filed the reply to contend that after commencement ofthe construction in the year 2008 a bridge constructed on a streamcollapsed and therefore, he could not continue the construction till the year2012 when the bridge was reconstructed. He further contends that in therecord of rights the area of survey no.48/4 is shown 2,230 sq. meters but

in the record of inspector of land records it was less than that. In order to

get it corrected, he had to wait t11130.12.2014. Thereafter he submitted the

amended plan for construction of additional floors in the place of initial 7

floors and had to spend one year in the process. Thereafter in the year 2015

L.B.T. rules were brought into effect by Thane Municipal Corporation and

it took some time to settle the issue. He also had to wait till the record ofinspector of land records/ city survey office was corrected regarding the

transfer of his land used for D.P. Road. Thereafter, he has submitted the

amended plan on 20.07.2017 for further construction of work and the

sanction is awaited. Hence he contends that the project is delayed because

of the reasons which were beyond his control.

4. I have heard the parties and perused the documents produced bythem.

5. The only point that arises for my consideration is, whether therespondent has failed to deliver the possession of the flat on the agreeddate and if yes, whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation orthe interest on his investment u/s. 18 of RERA?

6. The complainant has produced the copy of index II to show that therespondent executed the agreement of sale of the above numbered flat inhis favor on 17.11.2071,. Page no. 14 of the agreement shows thatrespondent agreed to give possession of the flat within 18 months from thedate of agreement. The contention of the complainant has not beenchallenged by the respondent regarding the delay in handing over thepossession of the flat. The respondent has assigned the reasons of delaywhich are mentioned above. It is seen that initially the respondent was toconstruct a building having only 7 stories. Thereafter he changed his mindto add additional floors and according to him till 2017 the process ofobtaining the sanction is going on. The facts to which the respondent refersto above are not, in my opinion, sufficient to hold that the project is delayedbecause of the reasons beyond his control. Not only that, during those daysMaharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion OfConstruction, Sale Management and Transfer) at 1963 was holding thefield. Section 8(b) of the said Act provides that if the promoter for reasonsbeyond his control is unable to give possession of the flat by date specified,or the further agreed date and a period of 3 months thereafter, or a furtherperiod of 3 months if those reasons still exist, then in such case thepromoter is liable to pay the interest at the rate of 9% on the amounts paidby the buyer. Even if all the circumstances were in favor of the respondent

to hold that he could not deliver the possession because of the reasons

which were beyond his control, he cannot get the extension of more than

three plus three months period from the agreed date. In any circumstance

I find that the respondent has failed to deliver the possession on the agreed

date and hence, he incurs the liability u/s. 18 of RERA to pay interest on

the amounts paid by the complainant and in case of special damage,

compensation also.

7. The complainant contends that he has been residing in a rentedhouse and he has to pay heavy interest on the loan amount. In view ofthese facts, I finci that no special case has been made out by thecomplainant for compensation.

8. However, the complainant is entitled to get simple interest at therate of marginal cost of lending of SBI which is currently * 8.75% pltts 2%

p.a. on the amounts paid by him to the respondent in context of thistransaction from the respective dates of the payment. The complainant hasproduced the copy of the cheque dated 15.11.2077 showing that Rs.

1,00,000/- had been paid to the respondent. He has produced receiptsdated 03.04.2012 of Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 13.07.2072 of 6,00,000/- dated30.07.2012/- of Rs. 10,000 /- plus 23,00,000/- dated 05.09.2012 of Rs.5,29,050/ - and dated 13.1,1,.20'1,6 of Rs. 62,490/ - to show that he paid Rs.41,01,520/ - to the respondent. In resul! the order.

Order.

The respondent shall pay the complainant the monthly simpleinterest at the rate of " 8.15% plus 2% p.a. Rs. 41,01,520/ - from the date ofdefault i.e. from 17.05.201,3, till he delivers the possession of the flat to thecomplainant.

The respondent shall clear the arrears of hterest accrued till30.09.2017 within one month of this order together with Rs. 2O,OOO/-

towards the cost of the complaint.

N{umbaiDate: 05.10.2017.

(B.D. Kapadnis)(Member & Adjudicating Officer)

MahaRERA, Mumbai*8.15% Corrected as per the order passed oni,6.10.2077 l/ s. 39 of RERA.

BEFORE THE

MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

MUMBAI

COMPLAINT NO: CC006000000000391

RAJU MAHADEOBANA ... Complainant.

Versus

KAILAS CHATRAPATi PATILMahaRERA Regn: P51700006977.

. . . Respondent.

Complainant Represented by himseif.Respondent Represented bv Mr. Mahabala Alva Adv.

Coram: Hon'ble Shri B.D. KAPADNIS.

16th Octobcr 2017

Final Order

This matter has been decided on 05.10.2017 and the resPondent therein,has been directed to pay the interest on the amounts paid bv the complainantto him with simple interest @ 10.5 % plus 2o/" from the respective dates ofpayments till he delivers the possession of the flat to the complainant.

After passing of this order it has come to mY notice that rule 18 ofMaharashtra Real Estate (Regulation & Developr-neni) (Registration ci Real

Estate Prol'ects, Registration of Real Estate Agents, Rates of Interest, &Disclosure on Web Site) Rules, 2017 lays down that the rate of interest payableby the promoters to the allottee shal1 be the S.B.I. highest marginal cost oflending rate plus 2%. The current rate is 8.157; and not 10.5% as mentionetl inthe orders passed in these complaints. Therefore, it is necessary to rectify thesaid figure by exercising the power of rectification of orders conferred bySection 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 b1'

substituting 8.15% in the place of 10.5%.

Hence, the orders are being corrected accordingly.After correction the orders be uploaded. Parties to submit the copies of

the order for correction.

"'\7(B.D. Kapadnis)

(Member & Adjudicating Officer)MahaRERA, Mumbai

MumbaiDate:16.10.2077

Ccmpiaint f io. CC006U'J00000'J39 i/ 1?

1,4r. Raju N{ahadev Bana ) . Cc*lPlainar.t

V/s.

IWsT-.t lconstruction

Cornpan5' ) ' P'espcndent

Applicaiicxr orr beheli ofthe respondent is as '.::lder

r/l av 11' PLEASEVnII R HOI.JOUR

'l'lre respotrdent subn-rits tirat, this liontrle attlioriry was .r,leased 1o par<erl

tl,.e order os 05na,2afi on the complaint of the ccmplainant nameiy ff{.,

1.Aoh..Jev R>nq and thereafter again the atthorit-v has issued the tiotie;e to the

respondent through Email tc appear before the authonty cn 16!fi2}17

accordiflgly lhe respernrlenl apleaierl liefore the atlfhority alr<l lirrririitrg n{]ieer- o{'

the authority has passed the finai order oa l'tlo?an and rectis the order dated

aslrclzai7.

Tlre respondenr suhnlits thal, beirig aggrieved and tiisraiisiierl {ir'tii llie

order passed by tnis authority dated 05110/2017 attd 161fi12017, the respondent

wanls tfr pref'ei the appeal liefore the Trib[nal but Ttihiinal is rioi yei 1r' lie fjaftierl.

Therefore it is necessary to this authority to stay &e crder CateC 0511012017 and

L6llODAfi till the formation oiTribunal.

It is theref'ore prays that, Ilon'hle authority may stay the o!-dei date(-l

A5l1fllz}fi and 1611,02}17, in the interest of justice'

Filed On: 26lrcl2jli

b5 \o.-r A\ ss \ \---.,

a-\.'....( . ii

9

\

\\F\ 3 rrrr-"\t-s

\<-baS.C'\ \\..\\

Q ocnnnrlontr\vJPUr ruvra!

tr\\()-

\lf (.-.\1/.-

b

lo oi?

!r

MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULETORY AUTHORITY

BRANDRA, MUMBAI

Complaint No' CC0060000000039'1 /1 7

Mr. Raju Mahadev Bana ) . ComPlainant

io

ResPondent

Application on behalf of the

Respondentisas underi

MAY IT PLEAS

Dtd.0511012017

EYOUR HO OURN

The respondent submits that' this Hon'ble 'Authoritv

was pleased to

oassed the order on o5/1o/i'd:i;;'iil ""'pr'itt.of the complainant namelv Mr'

H?1iffi s:fi tl*ilt*Tl'*",i":]lqii:flixffi id:"rr.L"ipr?::=";ffi rytdp*re-":j'#j;*l*,";g:lil,tXi}:i[:Jff#'il'"3T[1:of the AuthoritY has Passec

The respondent submits that' being aggrieved and dissatisfied from the

order passed uv this Autno'rliil, Dil' b;iioi'zoi7.and..1otl o t2017 ' the respondent

wants to prefer the ,pp""'"oZio'""i#i;iffi"i but the Tribunal is not vet to be

framed, therefore it i" n"ilt"s'""rv"t inlt n'tnority to stay the order Dtd'

[3iroBoi? "il'lanotzott tillthe iormulation of rribunal'

The respondent has already filed an.application' Dtd 2611012017 lo slay

the Order Dtd. Os/t0/2012'*Jii'rOliO17 tillihe formulation of Tribunal and the

officer of the Authority h"d;;;ilJ; theappfication to staved the said orders

for next 3 weeks trom tne"oil"oi application (a remarked copy is annexed

herewith). rhe respondeniie"n;lv"J;ld th"i' titt t'" dav and d9!9'tlg1tf'n'l

is not formed ano treretorJ';titj;;it i; stiv the ordei oto' 0511012017 and

,t6t1ot2o17 ti, the formutali""'"iiiiur."r and notify on formation of Tribunal to

the respondent for the proceedings'

It is therefore prayed that, Hon'ble Authority may stay the said Orders'

oto. osirolzorz ana ianotzolt in the interest of Justice'

Fited on b tlttzoltoqtntRqtP

I

l9!,)'L/--:;'6 ".\* \\ s\r1*{

" \S*-,el\\c>

b."r.

"-\t,.t'

J'<r

\- h^,

$\ th- M\xo"\

6 l) t

\)

L^.,

)

(-

#iE,^G

tjt)

*ffi

V/s.

M/s. Trinity Construction Company )