In a recent development before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), Advocate Aditya Pratap represented a complainant who was developing a residential project located at Devad Panvel. The case underscores critical issues in real estate law and consumer rights. The homebuyer, originally centered on compliance with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), alleges that the homebuyer entered into a sale agreement in 2014. He made substantial payments for a property that has not been completed despite financial commitments. Moreover, the project lacks the necessary MahaRERA registration and Occupation Certificate (OC). Whereas The developers of the project did not file any reply or any other submission about the status of the project and any facts of the complaint. They have still chosen to remain absent in the court hearings. For that reason, the Authority has proceeded with the ex-parte decision.
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AND MahaRERA ORDERS
The MahaRERA hearing presided over took a dramatic turn when MYTRI INFRAHOUSING PVT. Ltd. and the people involved, were there for the story. This resulted in a biased decision, and MahaRERA carefully examined the submissions made by Advocate Aditya Pratap on behalf of the appellant.
Project Registration Order Confirming the provisions of Section 3 of the RERA act, (no promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area, without registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under this act) the Government hereby appoints MYTRI INFRAHOUSING PVT. Ltd. to register the business within 30 days from the date of order. Failure to comply will attract a penalty under section 63 of the Act, of Rs 1000 per day.
Considering the continuity of the business and the absence of OC(occupation certificate), the developers faced several penalties. On May 1, 2017, an additional fine of Rs 100,000 was imposed on non-registrants. The project is an ongoing project for which a sale agreement has been registered. This however has not been honored by the developers and possession has not yet been offered to the home buyer nor has the OC(occupation certificate) been obtained for the said project. This silence of the respondent over possession not offered and neither the OC has been obtained makes falls the project within the ambit of section 3 of the said act.
MahaRERA’s order stipulates that the requirement of possession or completion of the project cannot be fulfilled until registration is complete. This highlights the importance of compliance in protecting consumer interests.
The directive also directed Panvel municipality to submit a detailed report on the status of the project within 30 days. The measure aims to ensure transparency and accountability in the ongoing real estate transactions in line with RERA’s objective of protecting home buyers.
Aditya Pratap, known for his proficiency in real estate law, expressed his satisfaction with the court order. He also explained the importance of timely business registration and compliance with norms to potential legal consequences.
This case of the complainant sets a precedent for accountability in the real estate industry. It underlines the authority’s commitment to strict implementation of the provisions of RERA, to ensure that projects meet the required standards of transparency and completeness. The judgement therefore stands as a landmark moment in the ongoing efforts to regulate Maharashtra’s real estate sector.
The article provides a comprehensive overview of the MahaRERA order and its implications, centered around the legal advocacy of Advocate Aditya Pratap on behalf of the complainant.