MahaRERA upholds another buyer's interest
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has yet again stood up for a flat buyer, who was refused possession of a house he had booked in Goregaon's Imperial Heights in 2016. Valuing over Rs 2 crore, the buyer had paid 20 per cent of the amount while the remaining 80 per cent was arranged by the developer-appointed Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, using a tripartite agreement. However, having failed to hand over the possession of the property, MahaRERA has directed the developer to repay the amount deposited by the buyer along with an interest, in its order dated October 1, 2018. However, if highly placed sources are to be believed, the builder has now decided to challenge the MahaRERA order in the Bombay High court. Bhuvanesh Shrivastava, 40, who runs a production company, had booked a flat, along with his wife Priyali Saxena, admeasuring approximately 730 sq ft (carpet area) in May 2016. As per the complaint made to MahaRERA (of which this paper has a copy), the flat was booked for a total consideration of Rs 2,03,00,269 and an allotment letter was thus issued on May 25, 2016. The developer (M/s Epitome Residency Pvt Ltd) had promised to hand over the possession of the flat by September 30, 2017. After being denied possession in time, Shrivastava, through a notice dated May 5, 2018, cancelled the allotment letter as well as the tripartite loan agreement and asked the developer to refund the amount paid by the couple. When there was no response from the developer, the complainant moved MahaRERA through advocate Shakib Shaikh. Advocate Vibhav Krishna, representing M/s Epitome Residency Pvt Ltd, argued that a tripartite agreement signed on May 31, 2016 was executed whereby the complainants have opted for a subvention scheme (while the project is under construction, the developer pays the interest on the loan to the bank. The buyer's EMIs begin only after he gets possession) and had subrogated their rights to receive refund in favour of the lender. This implies that the developer is not liable to pay any refund to the buyer.
Tags : News/Views