Share this

This brief explains two separate complaints with a common order, Vikas Agarwal and Alpa Vikas Agarwal vs. M/s. Taksha Spaces Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Kinner Kanu Nayak (Complaint No. CC006000000192377), and [] Alpa Agarwal Vikas Agarwal vs. M/s. Taksha Spaces Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Kinner Kanu Nayak (Complaint No. CC006000000192569).The complainants above named have filed this complaint seeking reliefs from MahaRERA to direct the respondents to hand over possession alongwith interest and compensation under the provisions of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of flat nos.1501 and 1502 in the registered project known as “Redevelopment of Govadhangiri” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51800002450 located at Goregaon (West), Mumbai.

Facts of the cases: It is the case of the complainants that relying on the representation and assurances made by the respondent no. 2, one of the Director of respondent no. 1 promoter (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’), and after negotiations have agreed to purchase two residential flats being Flat Nos.1501 and 1502 in “B” Wing known as “Kala” admeasuring about 752 Sq.ft. (Carpet) area each and one Car Parking Space for each for the sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. The respondent while making the said representation has also assured that the tentative date of the possession of the flats would be January, 2018.

However, since both the flats are adjacent, the agreement for 1501 shows possession date as January 2019 as a typographical error, unlike the agreement for sale of flat no.1502 reflecting date of possession as promised i.e., January 2018. Accordingly, they made payment of Rs.40,00,000/- which was duly received and against the same, the respondent has issued stamped receipts dated 18-01-2018. In the said receipt, due to oversight the flat No.1301 on the 13th floor is reflected instead of actual purchased flat being no. 1501 on the 15th floor. Accordingly, after receipt of the said amount, the respondent has entered into an agreement for sale which confirmed the terms and conditions of the sale, the receipt of payment of Rs.40,00,000/- and reflects the plan layout, sanctioned plan, C.C. and other requisite permissions obtained by the respondent from the competent authority. The said agreement for sale also reflects the date of possession as January, 2018.

The complainants further stated that for purchasing the said flat & the payment of balance consideration, the complainants approached ICICI Bank and obtained all clearance for release of the payment in respect of the said flats subject to the respondent executing and registering the agreement for sale. However, the loan was not disbursed by the ICICI Bank as the respondents failed to complete the construction of building within the time bound period. Inspite of the payment to the tune of 25%, the respondent though executed an agreement, failed and neglected to register the same which is a clear violation of the MOFA Act.

The respondent though promised to handover possession of the said flat completed in all respects within a period of one year (i.e. January, 2018) from the date of receipt of the amount, however, failed and neglected to discharge its duties which compelled them to obtain premises on the temporary basis and to pay heavy licence fees. Thus till date they paid the sum of Rs.5,28,000/- being the licence fee with effect from 1.2.2018 till 31.1.2020 till filing of the present complaint. Therefore, they are further entitled to claim a sum of Rs.22,000/- per month till the possession of the said flat is handed over to them.

Order: In a common order dated 16th September 2021, in the present case, it has also been brought to the notice of MahaRERA that the flats claimed by the complainants have already been sold out to third party in the year 2017 and thereafter. The said fact has also been admitted by the complainants and therefore in their rejoinder the complainants modified their reliefs and sought refund of the entire monies paid by them along with interest.

In this regard, the MahaRERA is of the view that at the outset, the complainants have failed to prove their status as allottees of this project. Hence, in absence of any relationship between them and the respondent as allottees and promoter, the MahaRERA cannot proceed to grant any relief towards the refund of the amount paid by them along with interest as sought by them. Mere issuance of loan sanctioned letter by the ICICI Bank is not sufficient to prove the status of the complainants as allottees. Hence, the MahaRERA do not find any merits in these complaints. However, the complainants are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for refund of their monies if any, paid to the respondent

Leave a Reply

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