Share this

This brief explains a common order for 5 separate complaints, namely, [] Rahul Uchil vs. Atithi Patel (Complaint No. CC006000000089922), and [Sr. no.2] Manish Lalchand Beriwal vs. Atithi Builders And Constructions Private Limited, Ashvi Developers Private Limited, Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (Complaint No. CC006000000141123), [] Swarnalata Desai vs. Atithi Builders And Constructors Pvt Ltd, Ashvi Developers Pvt Ltd (Complaint No. CC006000000192131), [] Sunil Menon vs. Ashvi Developers Pvt Ltd andAtithi BuildersAnd Constructors Pvt Ltd ( Complaint No. CC006000000195175), [] Reji Nair and Jyoti Reji vs. Ashvi Developers Pvt. Ltd., Atithi Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Atithi Patel Hiren Patel (Complaint No. CC006000000192376).

The complainants above named have filed these 5 separate complaints seeking various reliefs from MahaRERA against the respondents under the provisions of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) for refund of the entire amount paid by them along with interest and compensation with respect of booking of their respective flats in the respondent’s registered project known as “Ariisto Sommet – Residential” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51800009848 situated at Borivali, Mumbai. The complainants also prayed for reimbursement of pre- EMIs paid by them to the financial institutions under the subvention scheme provided by the respondent promoters.

Facts of the cases: In this case, the complainants are allottees as defined under section 2(d) of the RERA of the project registered by the promoters M/s. Ashvi Developers Pvt Ltd with MahaRERA under Registration No. P51800009848.

The complainants have mainly cited two reasons for withdrawal from this project

i) the respondent promoter failed to pay the pre-EMI interest to the financial institution under the subvention scheme introduced by it and even failed to reimburse the pre-EMI interest paid by the complainants to financial institution on account of default on the part of the respondent promoter to pay the same.

ii) Delay in handing over of the possession of the said flats to them on the agreed date of possession mentioned in the said agreements for sale/ allotment letters executed/ issued in favour of the complainants.

In this regard, the MahaRERA is of the view that the RERA is enacted to protect the interest of the home buyers, simultaneously it has to ensure the completion of the project in the time bound manner. If the withdrawal is allowed before the completion of the project, it would amount to further delay in the project due to diversion of funds which would definitely be against the interest of other home buyers who are waiting for their dream homes.

Order: In a common order dated 28th March 2022, the complainants are allowed to withdraw from this project. The respondent promoter is directed to refund the entire amount paid by the complainants towards the consideration of the said flats along with interest. However, till that date the respondent promoter shall be liable to pay interest to the complainants. Till the actual realisation of the said amount with interest to the complainants, the complainants shall have lien on the said flats.

Leave a Reply

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