Chandrakala Laxman Gajbhiye Vs Magniton Infra (Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai)
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), Mumbai, in Chandrakala Laxman Gajbhiye Vs Magniton Infra, partly allowed a complaint seeking reliefs relating to delayed possession, correction of flat numbering, execution of rectification documents, completion of interior work, and execution of a sale deed.
Background
The complainants entered into a registered Agreement for Sale dated 08.09.2016 for purchase of Apartment No. 701 in the project “The Address” for a total consideration of Rs. 44,00,000. Under Clause 7 of the agreement, the promoter agreed to hand over possession on or before 30.09.2017 and execute the registered sale deed.
The complainants stated that they paid Rs. 35,00,000 through RTGS/NEFT and alleged that the remaining Rs. 10,00,000 was paid in cash after repeated demands by the promoter. They contended that despite the agreed possession date, possession was never handed over and the promoter unilaterally extended the possession date on the MahaRERA website without informing them.
The complaint also narrated that during this period one of the original complainants underwent prolonged treatment for vocal cancer and subsequently passed away in June 2023. His legal heirs were brought on record.
Possession and Occupation Certificate
The complainants submitted that the promoter issued a possession letter and assurance letter dated 01.01.2020, promising completion of the apartment’s interior work. However, they argued that the project had not received an Occupation Certificate (OC) and therefore legal possession could not be accepted. They further asserted that the apartment remained incomplete and did not contain the fixtures and fittings promised under the project prospectus.
After visiting the project in November 2021 and again in May 2022, the complainants found that the interior work remained unfinished despite repeated assurances.
Dispute Regarding Flat Numbering
A major dispute arose regarding the identity of the apartment.
According to the complainants, they had purchased Flat No. 701, but upon visiting the project they discovered that another apartment had been created on the seventh floor and allotted Flat No. 701, while their apartment had been renumbered as Flat No. 702.
The complainants alleged that:
