In a significant ruling concerning alleged construction defects in a high-profile residential project, the Delhi Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) dismissed a batch of complaints filed by allottees of Golf View Condos, the first luxury apartment complex developed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in Dwarka.
The order, passed on February 11 and uploaded recently, held that the complaints “lack sufficient merit and credible substantiation” and failed to establish deficiency in service or breach of obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Background: Allegations by Residents of Golf View Condos
Several residents of Golf View Condos alleged multiple defects in the housing complex, including:
Uneven flooring and hollow tiles
Plaster defects and poor grouting
Water seepage and faulty plumbing
Inadequate electrical wiring
Incomplete common facilities
Delay in allocation of flats
The project comprises 11 towers housing 1,130 flats, including 14 penthouses, 170 super high-income group (HIG) flats and 946 HIG flats. The complex overlooks DDA’s newly constructed 18-hole golf course and was marketed as a premium residential offering.
Auction records indicated that the highest bids reached approximately Rs 3 crore for HIG flats, Rs 4.5 crore for super HIG flats and Rs 5.76 crore for penthouses. More than 500 flats have been allotted, and around 35 families are currently residing in the complex.
RERA’s Findings: Finishing Issues, Not Structural Defects
RERA relied on inspection reports submitted by a DDA-appointed committee as well as its own inspection team. The authority observed that the identified issues such as tile alignment, plastering defects, grouting gaps, and door fitting concerns were largely finishing-related issues.
The regulator clarified that such minor deficiencies fall within the scope of routine rectification during the maintenance or defect liability period and do not amount to structural defects or render the flats uninhabitable.
The authority concluded that the complainants had not established any serious violation under RERA.
Lack of Independent Technical Evidence
While the complainants submitted photographs and documentation highlighting alleged defects, RERA noted the absence of independent technical assessments or expert reports.
The authority observed that the allegations were primarily based on subjective observations and photographic evidence, which were insufficient to substantiate claims of structural deficiency or breach of statutory obligations.
“As-Is, Where-Is” Auction Basis and Buyer Awareness
A crucial aspect of the ruling was the acknowledgment that the project was offered on an “as-is, where-is” basis through e-auction. Prospective buyers were given the opportunity to inspect sample flats before participating in the bidding process.
RERA noted that voluntary participation in the auction process, in some cases above the base price, indicated acceptance of the project specifications at the time of allotment.
The authority further clarified that marketing terms such as “premium” or “luxurious,” though aspirational, do not automatically create specific contractual obligations regarding construction standards unless explicitly defined in the agreement for sale.
Direction to Honour Five-Year Defect Liability
Despite dismissing the complaints, RERA directed DDA to comply with its statutory five-year defect liability obligation under the RERA Act. The authority instructed DDA to rectify any defects brought to its notice within 30 days, at its own cost.
Additionally, RERA directed the appointment of a nodal officer, not below the rank of chief engineer, to address grievances raised by allottees.
Legal and Regulatory Implications
This ruling highlights important principles under RERA:
Finishing defects during the maintenance period do not automatically amount to structural deficiencies
Photographic evidence without expert validation may not suffice to establish deficiency in service
Auction-based allotments on an “as-is, where-is” basis limit post-allotment claims unless clear contractual breaches are proven
Marketing language does not override specific contractual terms
The decision strikes a balance between protecting consumer rights and preventing unsubstantiated claims against developers or development authorities.
