Case Law Details
Renaissance Infrastructure through its Partners Vs. Shri Parth B. Suchak (Bombay High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether Compensation will be levied on to the builder as per RERA if there is a delay in handing over the possession to the purchaser?
High Court states that none of the grounds urged by appellant bears on the liability of the Appellant herein to make a pre-deposit under the proviso of sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Act. The Appellant has been developing plots of land and entered into an agreement for allotment and sale of six plots within the project, together with a constructed building, to Respondent No.1 herein. Under this agreement, termed as “agreement for sale”, the Appellant was bound to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Respondent within an agreed period and execute a conveyance in respect of the same. Prima facie this agreement is nothing, but an agreement for sale between a promoter and an allottee. It may be that the allottee was an erstwhile partner of the promoter firm and the agreement was executed with a view to satisfy the allottee’s claim towards his share in the partnership upon his retirement. That does not, however, make the agreement any the less an agreement for sale. Afterall, consideration of an agreement for sale, instead of money, may well be any valuable consideration, including satisfaction of the allottee’s share in the promoter’s partnership. It is nevertheless an instance of allotment and sale of constructed premises with land, its consideration being satisfaction of the allottee’s claim in the business and assets of promoter partnership. The project is very much a real estate project; it is being developed by the Appellant as a promoter; and the Respondent is an allottee, to whom plots of land together with a building have been allotted and agreed to be sold (free-hold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter. Prima facie all ingredients of promotership of the Appellant are satisfied in the present case and there is no reason why its appeal before the Appellate Tribunal should not be treated as an appeal filed by a promoter.There is, in the premises, no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The orders do not give rise to any substantial question of law for the consideration of this court. The Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
