Chennai Hiranandani Residents Welfare Association Vs Secretary (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court, in the case of Chennai Hiranandani Residents Welfare Association Vs Secretary, has delivered a significant ruling emphasizing buyer protection under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act). The Court set aside a revised plan approval granted to a developer, finding that the developer had unilaterally altered the original master plan, including converting a designated clubhouse and commercial area into new residential towers, without obtaining the mandatory consent from existing allottees.
The dispute arose from a township development where the developer had marketed apartments using a brochure depicting a master plan with specific buildings designated as clubhouses and sports halls. Specifically, Building No. 18 was shown as a clubhouse for Phase II. However, the developer later sought and obtained a revised plan approval to construct two new residential towers (Octavius and Verona) in the location originally earmarked for the clubhouse/commercial area, effectively removing Block No. 36, which was also a clubhouse facility.
Contractual Provisions and Developer’s Shifting Stands
The construction agreements between the developer and the allottees contained several clauses relevant to the case. Clause H of the agreement indicated that the developer was in the process of constructing Phase II buildings and that the allottee had “satisfied himself/herself/itself with the proposed phased development.” Clause L stated that the developer had obtained necessary sanctions and could modify the balance area as deemed fit, or as per directions from planning authorities. Clause 10.3 required allottees’ consent for renewal/revision applications for approvals. Clause 17.2 outlined common amenities and facilities, with Annexure IV specifically mentioning a “Club House” with various facilities for which allottees would be eligible for membership upon payment.
