The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (KREAT) has set aside an order passed by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) in a dispute between homebuyers and the promoter of the Sobha Sentosa project.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the homebuyers while allowing the promoter’s appeal, bringing a significant development in the dispute concerning alleged changes to apartment designs, windows, landscaping and other project features.
The case raises important questions about the extent to which a promoter can make changes to an approved project and the role of homebuyer consent under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Dispute Over Changes to Sobha Sentosa Project
The dispute relates to apartments booked by homebuyers in the Sobha Sentosa project.
According to the homebuyers, their decision to purchase the flats was based on the model flat, approved plans, specifications, brochure and promotional material presented by the promoter.
The Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) had sanctioned the project on March 4, 2022, based on the approved master plan, architectural layout and the list of amenities.
The buyers argued that these representations formed an important basis for their decision to invest in the project.
However, they subsequently alleged that several changes were made to the project without obtaining their individual written consent.
Changes to Bedroom Windows Alleged
One of the principal grievances related to the design of the second and third bedrooms.
The homebuyers alleged that the model flat and project specifications showed French windows, which were later replaced with double-partition ventilator windows.
According to the buyers, this change affected:
- Natural light
- Ventilation
- The overall appearance of the bedrooms
- The specifications represented at the time of booking
The homebuyers argued that they had purchased the apartments based on the original design and specifications shown to them.
Landscaping and Amenities Also Questioned
The dispute was not restricted to the apartment interiors.
The homebuyers also alleged that changes were made to the project’s landscaping and conceptual features.
Among the features referred to by the buyers were the Super Tree and gazebo, which they said formed part of the project’s originally marketed concept.
The buyers contended that the removal or modification of such features amounted to a departure from the amenities and concept that had been represented to purchasers.
This raises an important issue for RERA-regulated projects: when does a change become a permissible modification, and when does it amount to an alteration requiring consent from allottees?
Homebuyers Raised Issues Regarding Occupancy Certificate
The buyers also alleged that the promoter demanded payments despite the project not having obtained an Occupancy Certificate (OC).
They further raised concerns regarding the registration of the Agreement for Sale and alleged that the promoter had failed to comply with obligations under the RERA framework.
The homebuyers sought multiple directions, including:
- Restoration or correction of the original window design
- A permanent wall for a home-office area
- Registration of the Agreement for Sale
- Litigation costs
- Penalty against the promoter
- First Preference Right to Lease
- Occupancy Certificate-related relief
Promoter Denied RERA Violations
The promoter opposed the allegations and described the complaint as an attempt to harass the company.
According to the promoter, the changes to the windows were approved by 82% of the purchasers.
The promoter maintained that the modifications:
- Were consistent with the approved project plan
- Did not affect the structural integrity of the building
- Had received the required level of approval from purchasers
The promoter also denied violating the provisions of RERA.
It submitted that delays caused by unforeseen circumstances had been communicated to the homebuyers and opposed demands for benefits that were not part of the Agreement for Sale.
The Key Issue: Can a Promoter Change Project Features?
The dispute brings attention to the provisions of the RERA Act dealing with changes to sanctioned plans and project specifications.
Under the RERA framework, a promoter cannot treat the approved plans and project disclosures as merely indicative documents that can be changed at will.
The law places restrictions on changes to sanctioned plans, layout plans and specifications.
The nature of the proposed change is therefore important.
A distinction may arise between:
Minor modifications required for technical, planning or construction reasons, and
Material changes affecting apartment specifications, layout, common areas or promised amenities.
The applicable statutory provisions and the specific facts of each project determine whether the consent of allottees is required.
Majority Consent Was Central to the Promoter’s Defence
The promoter’s claim that 82% of purchasers had approved the window changes formed an important part of its defence.
Commenting on the broader issue, Karnataka Home Buyers Forum Convenor Dhananjaya Padmanabhachar said:
“Promoters have to obtain the consent of the majority of allottees to change the plan and modify the amenities.”
The dispute therefore highlights the importance of properly documenting the consent process whenever promoters seek to make changes affecting the project.
For homebuyers, it also underlines the need to understand exactly what constitutes:
- A sanctioned plan
- A project specification
- A promised amenity
- A marketing representation
- A permissible modification
- A change requiring the consent of allottees
KREAT Sets Aside K-RERA Order
The matter eventually reached the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
KREAT set aside the order previously passed by K-RERA.
The Tribunal:
- Dismissed the appeal filed by the homebuyers, and
- Allowed the appeal filed by the promoter
The outcome is significant because it reverses the earlier position adopted in the dispute before K-RERA.
The Tribunal’s decision will have particular relevance to the parties involved in determining their respective rights concerning the disputed project modifications and other reliefs sought in the proceedings.
What the Case Means for Homebuyers
For prospective and existing homebuyers, the dispute offers several important lessons.
1. Preserve Brochures and Promotional Material
Buyers should preserve copies of:
- Brochures
- Advertisements
- Model flat photographs
- Amenity lists
- Floor plans
- Specifications
- Emails and WhatsApp communications
These documents may become important if a dispute later arises over what was originally promised.
2. Read the Agreement for Sale Carefully
The Agreement for Sale should be examined to determine:
- The specifications promised by the promoter
- The nature of amenities
- Clauses permitting modifications
- Force majeure provisions
- Possession timelines
- Rights and obligations of the promoter and allottee
Not every feature shown in a promotional concept may necessarily carry the same contractual status.
3. Understand the Difference Between Individual and Majority Consent
RERA contains specific provisions governing changes to project plans and specifications.
Depending on the nature of the proposed modification, the question may arise as to whether the promoter requires:
- Consent of an individual allottee, or
- Consent of the prescribed majority of allottees
The legality of the modification can therefore depend heavily on the nature of the change and the statutory provision applicable to it.
4. Ask for Written Communication
If a developer proposes a change to a flat or common amenity, buyers should seek written clarification regarding:
- The exact nature of the change
- The reason for the change
- Whether the sanctioned plan has been modified
- Whether regulatory approval has been obtained
- Whether the consent of allottees is being sought
Why the KREAT Decision Matters
The Sobha Sentosa dispute is significant because modern residential projects are often sold not only on the basis of the physical apartment but also on the basis of a broader lifestyle concept.
Buyers may be influenced by:
- Architectural design
- Landscaping
- Green spaces
- Clubhouse facilities
- Recreational areas
- Model apartment specifications
- Special conceptual features
When these features are modified, disputes can arise over whether the changes are legally permissible and whether they affect the bargain on which buyers based their purchase decision.
The KREAT ruling also demonstrates that RERA Authority orders can be challenged before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, and the Tribunal may set aside or modify the Authority’s decision after examining the matter.
Key Takeaways
Project: Sobha Sentosa
Dispute: Alleged changes to apartment design, windows, landscaping and project features
Homebuyers’ allegation: Changes were made without proper written consent
Window dispute: French windows allegedly replaced with double-partition ventilator windows
Other disputed features: Landscaping, Super Tree and gazebo
Promoter’s defence: 82% of purchasers approved the changes
Promoter’s position: Changes complied with approved plans and did not affect structural integrity
KREAT decision: K-RERA order set aside
Homebuyers’ appeal: Dismissed
Promoter’s appeal: Allowed
Conclusion
The Sobha Sentosa case before KREAT highlights the continuing debate over the rights of homebuyers when a developer modifies features, specifications or amenities after apartments have been marketed and booked.
The Tribunal’s decision to set aside the K-RERA order, dismiss the homebuyers’ appeal and allow the promoter’s appeal marks an important outcome in the dispute.
For homebuyers, the case reinforces the importance of maintaining complete records of the model flat, brochures, approved specifications and Agreement for Sale.
For developers, it demonstrates the importance of maintaining proper documentation and obtaining the legally required level of consent when changes are proposed to sanctioned plans or promised project features.
