Case Law Details

Case Name : Mr. Jatin Mavani Vs M/s. Rare Township Pvt. Ltd (RERA)
Appeal Number : Complaint No. CC006000000055013
Date of Judgement/Order : 14/12/2018
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : RERA (3)

Mr. Jatin Mavani Vs M/s. Rare Township Pvt. Ltd (RERA)

The record shows that the complainant was also one of the member of the Rising City Ghatkopar Association. The said fact has not been denied by the complainant. The said complaint was filed with the MahaRERA by the allottees seeking directions from MahaRERA to allow cancellation of the flat bookings by the allottees who want to do so without cancellation fees and direct the respondent to refund the amount paid by the allottees along with interest and compensation. In the said complaint after hearing the arguments of both the side, the MahaRERA has already given verdict directing the respondent promoter to execute the registered agreements for sale with the members of the Rising City Ghatkopar Association. Since the complainant is also a party to the said proceeding , he can not separately agitate this complaint before the MahaRERA, as it will amount to agitate multiple proceedings on the same issue, which is not permissible in RERA Act, 2016. In the present case since the MahaRERA has already given judgment in the proceeding filed by the complainant through the Rising City Ghatkopar Association, the same issue can not be agitated before the MahaRERA again.

Full text of the order of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai

1. The above named complainant has filed this complaint with MahaRERA seeking directions to the respondent to refund the amount paid by him to the respondent along with interest at the rate of 24% PA for the delayed possession in respect of booking of a flat in the respondent’s project known as ‘Rising City- Atlanta Heights’ at Ghatkopar bearing MahaRERA Registration No. P51800000756.

2. This matter was heard on several occasions. During the hearings, both the parties sought further time to settle the matter amicably. However in spite of several meetings, both the parties could not reach to the mutually agreeable terms. Hence this matter was finally heard on 16-11-2018. After hearing the arguments of both the side the MahaRERA granted liberty to both the parties to file written submissions on record of MahaRERA.

3. The complainant has argued that he had booked the said flat in the respondent’s project known as Atlanta Heights in the year 2011 for total consideration amount of Rs. 1, 32,99,000/-. At the time of booking of the said flat the respondent has agreed that he would start the construction work under the said project not later than 31st August, 2011 and will hand over the possession of the said flat to him within a period of 36 months from the date of commencement of the construction. He did not register the agreement and also failed to complete the project. The complainant therefore, is not interested in the said flat and therefore he is seeking refund of the amount paid by him to the respondent along with interest.

4. The respondent disputed the claim of the complainant and argued that the complainant is not an allottee as defined under the provisions of the RERA Act, 2016 and therefore he can not seek relief under section 12 and 18 of the RERA Act, 2016. He further argued that the complainant has booked one flat having an area adm 1089 sq.fts carpet area in the year 2011. Thereafter due to change in the DCR in the year 2012, the layout of the said building got changed and therefore the respondent gave option to the complainant to take refund along with 14% interest. However the complainant preferred to remain in the project. Thereafter the complainant was offered two flats in lieu of his earlier booking and the initial amount paid by him was adjusted in the said flats. The provisional letter of allotment was issued to the complainant on 29th September, 2014. Afterwards, in the month of November, 2014, the complainant was called upon to pay the stamp duty, registration charges and VAT. However he failed to pay the same. Even the draft agreement for sale was sent to the complainant trice, however he did not come forward to execute the registered agreement for sale. Even from the year 2014, the complainant has not paid the outstanding payable and made default in payment. Moreover the complainant being one of the member in the association formed by the allottees of the said project had earlier filed complaint bearing No. CC006000000023888 before MahaRERA, wherein the Chairman of MahaRERA has already passed an order on 10th July, 2018 and directed the respondent to execute the registered agreement for sale with the members of the complainant association viz Rising City Ghatkopar Association. The respondent therefore requested for dismissal of this complaint.

5. The MahaRERA has examined the arguments advanced by both the parties as well as the record. In this regard the MahaRERA has perused the order dated 10th July , 2018 passed by the Chairman , MahaRERA in Complaint No. CC006000000023888 filed by one Rising City Ghatkopar Association. The record shows that the complainant was also one of the member of the said Association. The said fact has not been denied by the complainant. The said complaint was filed with the MahaRERA by the allottees seeking directions from MahaRERA to allow cancellation of the flat bookings by the allottees who want to do so without cancellation fees and direct the respondent to refund the amount paid by the allottees along with interest and compensation. In the said complaint after hearing the arguments of both the side, the MahaRERA has already given verdict directing the respondent promoter to execute the registered agreements for sale with the members of the Rising City Ghatkopar Association. Since the complainant is also a party to the said proceeding , he can not separately agitate this complaint before the MahaRERA, as it will amount to agitate multiple proceedings on the same issue, which is not permissible in RERA Act, 2016. In the present case since the MahaRERA has already given judgment in the proceeding filed by the complainant through the Rising City Ghatkopar Association, the same issue can not be agitated before the MahaRERA again.

6. In view of these facts, the MahaRERA directs that considering the earlier order dated 10th July, 2018 passed by the Chairman, MahaRERA, the present complaint is not maintainable and therefore, the same is dismissed.

7. As a result, the complaint stands disposed of.

Tags:
Download Judgment/Order

More Under Corporate Law

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *