Tag: maharera

As many as 3,371 residential projects across the state have been declared “lapsed” between 2017 and 2021 because the builders were unable to complete them in the deadline they had set while registering their projects with the MahaRera. Of these, 453 projects are in Greater Mumbai, according to MahaRera’s list of “expired” projects.

“The validity of MahaRera registration for these projects has expired. The promoter shall not advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be,” the regulatory authority said.

‘Funding is the biggest reason why builders’ projects lapse in state’

Builders must in such a case apply for an extension. Vasant Prabhu, secretary, Maha-Rera, said that these builders are granted a year’s extension by the housing authority. “But if they are still unable to complete the project after the one-year extension, such builders will have to seek the consent of at least 51% of the people who have booked apartments in their projects. If these flat buyers agree to a further extension, MahaRera will not object,” he said.

“Lapse of project can be avoided if the developer updates the project details mandated by MaharRera on its portal and obtains extension of project if required at a proper time,” Niranjan Hiranandani, CMD, Hiranandani Communities, and president of the builder body Naredco National, said.

Lapsed projects are not blacklisted projects, said developer and vice-president of Naredco West, Hitesh Thakkar. “It’s the timeline of the project, which is lapsed, which can be revived with consent of buyers. Developers must maintain transparency and good relations with their buyers,” Thakkar said.

Anuj Puri, chairman of ANAROCK Group, said Rera registration numbers of various projects in the state have lapsed on account of several factors, but funding is by far the biggest reason. “Rera was implemented in 2017, and a year later the IL&FS crisis held real estate hostage, particularly the residential segment. NBFCs had been a major source of funding for the real estate industry since banks were reluctant owing to rising NPAs. Funding by the NBFCs slowed down significantly with the IL&FS crisis. Private equity funding into the sector also slowed down to a trickle back then,” he said.

Puri said Grade B and C developers were the most impacted as lending to them was minimal. “It is not all doom and gloom, however. Government-backed funds are identifying some projects that are near completion to bring them to completion with last-mile funding, and some of the larger developers are taking over and reviving some other projects,” he said.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/3400-housing-projects-in-maharashtra-have-time-lapsed-rera/articleshow/85964532.cms

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRera) has directed builders to henceforth inform flat purchasers to what extent they have received construction permissions.

Currently, builders only declare that they have received the “commencement certificate” or the CC for the building without specifying anything further.

For example, the civic authority issues only stage-by-stage permission to the developer. The CC can only be restricted for plinth level or for only the first five floors of a skyscraper.

“The flat buyer is under the impression that the CC is for the entire building. This may not be so in most projects,” said a RERA source.

On Monday, RERA chief Ajoy Mehta’s office issued a circular, stating builders must now specify the details of the CC they have received.

“It is observed that layout approvals although obtained for the entire project, many a times other approvals are obtained in stages, including the commencement certificate up to a plinth/zero FSI/or commencement certificate up to a particular floor level. Flat buyers are unaware of the stage wise approvals. Therefore, it has decided to prescribe a declaration by the promoter (builder) to certify the exact stage of the commencement certificate, so that flat buyers will be aware of the same,’’ said the circular.

Builders will now have to file a declaration form and upload it along with the CC while registering the project.

In another recent order, RERA asked builders to give more clarity to buyers about flat transactions. “To avoid transactions of flats/pIots, it is necessary to provide the information as soon as sale is concluded or booking is made,” it said.

Mehta had earlier also ordered builders to meticulously submit the list of all their flat buyers along with their signatures in a proper format when seeking various permissions. Earlier, they would get away with sketchy details or shoddy paperwork when they registered their projects.

The builder will require the consent of at least 51% of the allottees if he wants extension of the completion date of the project. The consent will now be required with their names, flat numbers and signatures.

The circular has also specified that in case developers want to change the floor plan, design or make any major alterations in the sanctioned plans, they will require the consent of two-third of the people who have booked flats in the project.

Each of them will have to sign with their names and flat numbers on the promoter’s letterhead. The consent application will clearly mention the earlier building plans and the new alterations sought by the developer.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/mumbai-maharera-tells-builders-to-give-flat-buyers-permission-details/articleshow/83347765.cms

The real estate sector has faced numerous challenges and RERA has been one of the resorts that brought in significant improvements in the real estate sector. Now, to dilute the impact of the COVID pandemic on the sector, can RERA bring in more efficiency and transparency? Throwing light on this, Rohitashwa Poddar, MD, Poddar Housing and Development Ltd., addressed the National Housing Summit.

He said, ”Poddar Group is not known for real estate, however, we entered the industry to work for the Affordable Housing Scheme of the Government of India. Since the inception, we had followed the best practices but with the formation of MahaRERA made a gigantic difference in making the people understand the right developer.” As a consequence of the formation of MahaRERA platform, businesses have seen a positive rise, he added.

He expressed his gratitude towards MahaRERA saying, “I am thankful to MahaRERA for drawing a clear line between the ethical and non-ethical developers. This has not only helped the customers to buy better but has also been of great help to those who are clean. I hope this continues in the future as well. Also, I hope to see more performance-based matrices to be launched for helping people to buy the best.”

Calling RERA a pro-economy measure, Poddar said that before this came in existence there was a division of trust among the buyers. Therefore, the RERA is neither a pro-customer nor a pro-developer but a pro-economy measure. “It has made the entire system more transparent and accountable. Moreover, it helped in the growth of GDP and it will also help the real estate sector to have a significantly higher percentage of the GDP as we grow forward and become a more developed economy.”

He backed the words of Nayan A Shah, saying, “If we have RERA address the interests of all the stakeholder and hold all stakeholders responsible, I completely agree that we have to have regulatory authorities.” On this note, he requested the RERA authorities to consider the concern raised that is holding each stakeholder responsible. “In affordable housing, we work on very thin margins and delays in getting approvals makes the project costlier for the customer or our project become unviable to the degree that we cannot launch it”, added Poddar as he concludes his address.

Raising a request following the valediction of Rohitashwa Poddar’s address, Nayan A Shah raised a concern to Dr Vijay Satbir Singh that there are two legislations that govern the real estate sector in Maharashtra, Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (MOFA) and MahaRERA. “This causes confusion. We request you to kindly look into it that if MOFA can be scrapped so that there is only one legislation.”

Source: https://egov.eletsonline.com/2021/05/maharera-parts-ethical-from-unethical-developers-rohitashwa-poddar/

SRA gives project back to developer booked for cheating buyer Vile Parle Police booked two developers acting on a complaint of a homebuyer who has been duped on the pretext of getting the possession of his booked flat. The complainant had given a demand draft of Rs 95 lakh to book the flat, but the developers have not handed over the flat to him. The MahaRERA orders stated that the developers should pay Rs 1 lakh per month for delaying possession. And, they are yet to pay a total of Rs 18 lakh as penalty.

According to the police, the complainant said, in a statement, that he had booked flat 1101 in a Vile Parle building and had paid Rs 95 lakhs as the booking amount. Even after repeated reminders to give the possession of the flat, the developers kept delaying it and the matter ended up in the MahaRERA court. The MahaRERA court had ordered the developers to pay a penalty of Rs 1 lakh to the complainant until the possession is given, which the developers allegedly failed to.

Acting on this information, the complainant approached the police and lodged a complaint of cheating, forgery and common intention against them. After valid points were observed in the complaint letter, a case was lodged against them on April 7 for violating the MahaRERA orders by not paying a total of Rs 18 lakh as penalty, as directed, for not giving the possession of the flat.

Source: https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/mumbai-developers-booked-for-cheating-homebuyer-and-violating-maharera-orders

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the Maharashtra government to file an affidavit on the status of constituting a cell to monitor and prevent illegal construction across the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR). The court also directed the commissioners of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and other civic bodies in the MMR to personally explain why laws pertaining to illegal constructions were not being implemented.

In 2018, the High Court had passed a detailed order on taking action against illegal structures in the city and had directed the BMC to constitute a supervisory cell dedicated to monitoring such construction, taking punitive and preventive action, etc.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G S Kulkarni on Wednesday noted that the civic body had failed to constitute such a cell and to implement several other directions passed in the 2018 order.

The bench said the city and the entire MMR had witnessed rampant illegal construction through the years.

Instances of illegal construction had not stopped even during the lockdown imposed in view of the COVID 19 pandemic, the court said, adding that the picture would have been different if the supervisory cell had been constituted.

There was no “will” on the state’s part, the court said.

“The commissioners must be held accountable for not ensuring that the laws are enforced,” it said.

These observations were made when the bench was hearing suo-motu proceedings against dilapidated buildings and illegal structures taken up after one such building collapsed in Bhiwandi on September 23, 2020.

Earlier this year, during a hearing in the matter, the High Court had directed the BMC and the civic bodies of Thane, Navi Mumbai, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Mira-Bhayandar, Ulhasnagar and Bhiwandi-Nizampur to furnish details of punitive action taken against illegal structures in areas under their respective jurisdiction.

The court on Wednesday directed all these civic bodies to file fresh affidavits with the exact number of illegal structures under their jurisdiction.

It also suggested that the BMC come up with a separate policy for illegal commercial premises.

No one must be permitted to earn profits from such structures and that illegal commercial structures must be the first to be razed, the court said.

Source: https://realty.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/regulatory/hc-asks-maharashtra-govt-about-status-of-monitoring-cell-for-illegal-construction/81451112

MahaRERA in a recent order directed Conoor Builders to pay the owner of a flat in its Gateway project at Andheri west interest at marginal cost lending rate of SBI plus 2% for a nearly three-year delay in possession. The flat buyer’s lawyers pegged the amount at around Rs 60 lakh.

MahaRERA member, Vijay Satbir Singh, in his order has also stated the builder cannot shift its statutory liability to the land owner as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the land owner since it is not party to the registered sale agreement executed between the complainant and the respondent.

Sushant Karkera booked a flat valued at approximately Rs 2 crore in 2014. The builder was liable to hand over possession on or before December 31, 2016. However, the complainant, through his representative chartered accountant Ashwin Shah and advocate Sandeep Manubarwala, stated the builder, without giving any intimation, extended the project completion date to December 2019, which was further extended till December 2020 while registering the project with MahaRERA.

Respondent Conoor Builders, represented by advocates Anil D’Souza and Saroj Agarwal, pointed out the project got delayed due to genuine and unavoidable difficulties attributable to land owner, AH Construction. The respondent also stated the complainant was aware that AH Construction was owner as well as promoter-owner of the property as the sale agreement clearly mentioned AH Construction has all obligations to procure requisite permissions for the said building.

However, the complainant contended he had no privity of contract with AH Construction and that he had paid money for the flat to the respondent. The complainant also relied upon earlier SC judgments in case of Vaidehi Akash Housing Pvt Ltd and Goregaon Pearl CHS and stated the owner is not liable to pay interest for delay in possession.

MahaRERA member Singh’s order also stated the complainant was no way concerned with the dispute between the land owner and the respondent.

The order stated if the project was getting delayed, then the respondent should have informed the complainant and should have revised the date of possession in the agreement by executing a rectification deed or should have offered a refund.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/maharera-asks-bldr-to-pay-buyer-rs-60-lakh-for-delay/articleshow/80179440.cms

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in an unprecedented case, has asked a homebuyer to pay penalty in the form of interest to the developer for delay in payment. This is contrast to usual directives from the authority to developers to pay penalty for delayed possession to a homebuyer.

According to a report in the Economic Times, SMP Namrata Associates, a developer, complaint against a home buyer for not making payment despite several demand letters.

The homebuyer had entered into an agreement with the developer to buy an under-construction apartment in Pune and the same was registered in August 2019. According to the builder’s complaint, the homebuyer had not made any payment despite several demand letters between August and December 2019.

The homebuyer then in January 2020 sent a legal notice to the builder for non-allotment of car parking space. This, along with an increase in GST charges, was cited by the homebuyer as reasons for not making payment to the developer, the business daily mentioned.

The developer then approached MahaRERA to seek its directions for cancellation of the agreement and forfeiture of the amount paid by the buyer at the time of booking.

The homebuyer had claimed that the complainant being a promoter cannot file a complaint against the allottee as there is no provision under RERA to file such complaint.

MahaRERA member, Vijay Satbir Singh opined that that the buyer being an allottee is liable to make payments in accordance with the terms and condition of the sale agreement, the publication mentioned.

The authority is of the view that in case of any default on the part of allottee or the promoter, either party would be entitled to seek interest for such a default as prescribed by the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.

Source: https://www.timesnownews.com/business-economy/industry/article/unprecedented-in-a-first-maharera-fines-homebuyer-for-payment-delay-to-builder/663475

Mumbai

The Bombay High Court has directed real estate developer Renaissance Infrastructure to pay Rs 5.04 crore as compensation to a person who had not been handed over his property in Mumbai even after a delay over 80 months. A single bench of Justice S C Gupte on September 25 upheld the orders of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the RERA Appellate Tribunal that had ordered for the compensation amount to be paid to the purchaser.

The developer had approached the HC, challenging orders of RERA and the RERA Appellate Tribunal passed in January this year. As per the HC order, the purchaser bought six plots of land and some warehousing buildings from the developer in December 2009.

According to the sale agreement, the warehousing buildings and plots were to be handed over to the purchaser by March 9, 2010. The agreement also said that if the developer failed to hand over the properties on time, he would be liable to pay the purchaser a compensation amount at the rate of Rs 10 per sq ft per month.

When the developer failed to hand over the property, the purchaser approached the RERA that calculated the compensation amount as Rs 5.04 crore. The Renaissance Infrastructure challenged this order before the appellate tribunal, which asked the developer to deposit 50 percent of the compensation amount as per the RERA Act for entertaining the appeal.

But, when the developer failed to pay the pre-deposit, the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal. The developer then filed a second appeal in the HC.

In his order, Justice Gupte dismissed the second appeal after holding that there were no infirmities in the orders passed by the RERA and the appellate tribunal. He held that the orders do not give rise to ”any substantial question of law for the consideration of the High Court”.

Justice Gupte said the Renaissance Infrastructure was liable to hand over the property as agreed to. ”Under this agreement, termed as an agreement for sale, the appellant (Renaissance) was bound to hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent within an agreed period,” the high court said.

It directed the developer to pay Rs 5.04 crore to the purchaser within four weeks.

Source: https://www.cnbctv18.com/legal/bombay-hc-directs-developer-to-pay-rs-5-cr-for-delay-in-property-hand-over-7063901.htm

Mumbai

In a recent case involving a housing complex, Rivali Park Project in Borivali—now called Wintergreen—the builder contended that buyers making payments after the possession date has passed amounts to them agreeing to the delay. But the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRera) rejected the developer’s claim that the homebuyers had consented to the delay because they kept paying the instalments despite the chance in possession date.

“As per Rera guidelines, in case of a delay by the developer in completion of the project, buyers may opt for either cancelling the deal and claiming refund with interest, or to continue the agreement and seek compensation for the delay period,” said Mukesh Jain and Associates, a Mumbai-based law firm.

Even though MahaRera ruled against the builder in this case between CCI Projects Ltd. and homebuyers, saying buyers were eligible to receive interest payment for the delay period, this might not always be the case.

So, does it make sense to keep making payments after the promised possession date passes?

According to Anuj Puri, chairman, Anarock Property Consultants, you may not have a choice.

“Frustrated with the prolonged project delays, many buyers stop payments to developers. However, under the agreement to sale, sellers or developers are well within their legal right to cancel the booking if buyers fail to honour their part of the payment deal. Since each case may be different, a legal person must always advise on such matters,” he said.

Puri added that although MahaRera ruled in favour of the buyers, the exact variables may differ from case to case and not all such cases are equal in the eyes of the law. “Despite Rera being in place across the country, it is still largely work-in-progress. It is very much a case-to-case scenario. Moreover, respective states’ and union territories’ Reras have their own rules and regulations. Therefore, buyers should first seek local legal advice before taking any action,” he said.

According to Anuranjan Mohnot, MD and CEO, Lumos Alternate Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd, Rera needs to be simplified to protect interest of homebuyers as well as developers.

“To avoid situations like this, Rera should introduce a milestone-based project review instead of just having one parameter of delays with respect to the possession date. This will help buyers to sense serious deviations at an early stage and they can approach Rera for taking proactive steps to avoid major delays,” he said.

Even in states with a fully functional Rera in place, moving the authority in favour of homebuyers might turn out to be a challenge. It can be very frustrating to have inordinate delays in getting possession of your house, but discontinuing payments can cause further complications. Consider the circumstances and seek legal advice to protect your interests as a homebuyer.

Source: https://www.livemint.com/money/personal-finance/should-you-keep-paying-your-emis-after-the-builder-misses-possession-date-11598349480123.html

Mumbai

In a major judgment, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRera) disallowed a builder last week from carrying out the construction of an additional floor for his project at New Panvel without the consent of the buyers who already bought flats in the building.

The ruling is significant, as builders over the years modified plans and made additions to their existing constructions without taking the buyers into confidence, leaving the latter helpless, as they were promised a completely different structure.

The case was filed by four homebuyers – Deepesh Singh, Sujay Joshi, Nikhil Bare and Vaibhav Ballal – against Ms Neelkanth Constructions, for its Neelkanth Vihar Phase I project at New Panvel.

The complainants alleged that despite receiving the possession of their flats, the developer is yet to form the society and allot parking spaces to the occupants.

Responding to the complaint, Neelkanth Constructions said it wanted to utilise the unused floor space index (FSI). Accusing the complainants of ulterior motives, Neelkanth Constructions contented that after taking the possession of their flats, the buyers cannot stop it from consuming the FSI of the entire land.

The developer said they started the process of forming the society, but the complainants kept obstructing the respondent to extract money from the builder. Hence, the society formation process was stopped. The developer also said that if the complainants do not disrupt the process, it will go ahead with the formation of the society.

However, while hearing the case, the state real estate regulator cited section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) 2016, which mandated that any modification in the building plans, including the construction of additional floors, required the requisite consent of two-third of the allottees.

“With regards to the construction of additional floor to be constructed in the building, MahaRera directs that without the consent of two-third of the allottees, as prescribed under section 14 of the RERA, a respondent would not carry out any construction on site,” MahaRera said in its ruling.

According to housing activist Vinod Sampat, a builder loses his/her right of modification after the first apartment is sold.

“It is binding on the builder to obtain the consent of the buyer, as the latter has booked [the property] based on the plans given by the developer. Any additional construction would be a burden on the homebuyer, and hence, the consent [of the buyer] is required. Even the extra FSI offered later goes to the kitty of homebuyers,” said Sampat

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/developer-can-t-add-extra-floor-without-nod-of-buyers-maharashtra-real-estate-regulator/story-UUiwdRUYGzpeUkIphqooVN.html