Case Law Details
Vrajesh Hirjee Vs Skyline Construction Co. (RNA Exotica) (Maharashtra RERA)
The respondents have mentioned various reasons in their reply which caused delay in completing the project. Even if it is taken for granted that they are the genuine reasons which are beyond the control of the respondents, the respondents cannot claim the extension of more than six months of the date of possession in view of Section 8 (b) of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. Hence, the respondents are liable to refund the complainants amount with interest at prescribed rate.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF Maharashtra RERA
The Complainant has been seeking refund of his amount with interest under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016(RERA) because the respondents failed to hand over the possession of flat no. C-2804 of their registered project RNA Exotica situated at Goregaon on agreed date 31.12.2015.
2. The respondents have pleaded not guilty and have filed their reply to contend that the complaint is not maintainable because there is no agreed date of possession mentioned in the agreement. They deny that agreed date of possession is 31.12.2015. They further contend that other allottees of the project have filed Suit No, 425 of 2017 in Bombay High Court and the construction work is being monitored by the High Court as per the order passed by it and the project is to be completed by 31st October 2019. Therefore, the complaint is premature and is not maintainable. They further contend that they could not complete the project because it is under rehabilitation scheme and they have to face many hurdles in evacuating the encroachers, face the litigations and problems in obtaining the various sanctions and permissions mentioned in their reply. On 24.11.2010 they applied for Environmental Clearance and got it on 28th November 2012. They applied to the Airport Authority of India for height clearance on 04.11.2011. The said Authority gave its height clearance to the extent of 119.96 mtrs. above mean sea level and therefore, they had to file the Appeal on 12.02.2014 before the Appellate Committee of Ministry of Civil Aviation. On 27.08.2015 the said Authority revised the height and granted NOC. Therefore, they had reduced the height of the building by 5 residential floors and had to seek the amended approval from MMRDA. They have also referred to some issues regarding occupants who encroached in the building no R-210 during the period from 2015 to 2017. They got approval from MMRDA in August 2017 for amended building plan in which five upper floors have been reduced. Therefore, they submit that the reasons for delay are beyond their control. According to them, the earlier complaint bearing no. CC006 /57100 seeking the same reliefs has been disposed off by this Authority when the complainant withdrew it. Hence, they request to dismiss the complaint.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
