Propwizz Infra LLP
Share this

This brief explains a common order for 12 separate complaints, namely, [] Pooja   Devidas Hanchate (Complaint No. CC005000000053934), [] Sanjay Prabhakar Deshmukh (Complaint No. CC005000000054009), [] Kavita Anil Kshirsagar ( Complaint No. CC005000000054094), [] Vaman Mallesha Dhulrao (Complaint No. CC005000000054146), [] Renu Ajaykumar Sharma (Complaint No. CC005000000064446), [] Abhay Kumar Sharma (Complaint No. CC005000000075101), [] Layqua Murtja Kadari Mangoli (Complaint No. CC005000000075111), [Sr. no.8] Rajashree Panchakshari Swami (Complaint No. CC005000000075113), [] Vijay Maruti Borade (Complaint No. CC005000000085240), [] Manoj Madhukar Dole (Complaint No. CC005000000085259), [] Mahananda Avinash Birajdar (Complaint No. CC005000000085332), [] Tousif Latif Patil (Complaint No. CC005000000085335), against a common respondent, Propwizz Infra LLP through its Partner Arshad Navroj Tejani.

The complainants above named have filed these 12 separate complaints seeking reliefs from MahaRERA to direct the respondent to handover possession of their respective flats along with all amenities and the interest for the delayed possession under the provisions of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’), in respect of the booking of their respective flats in the respondent’s registered project known as “Ananta Solapur” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P52600011351 situated at Solapur.

Facts of the case: It is the case of the complainants that they are allottees of this project registered by the respondent promoter viz M/s. Propwizz Infra LLP. They have stated that they have entered into a registered agreement for sale with respect to their flats on various dates from 2016 till 2018 and have paid substantial amounts to the respondent promoter. As per the said agreements, the respondent promoter was liable to handover possession of their flats within a period of two years from the dates of the execution of the said agreements.

Though they have paid substantial amounts, the respondent promoter has failed and neglected to handover possession of their flats to them. The complainants have stated that they have paid the consideration amounts to the respondent by availing home loans and hence they are under the burden of bank interest. The respondent, even after accepting the money from them, has neither started constructing the project nor has it refunded the money to them. Hence, they have filed these complaints seeking reliefs as sought for in these complaints.

The said contention raised by the respondent has substance, since late Mr. Navroj Tejani was one of the partner of the respondent’s firm and he committed suicide on 24-07-2017 i.e. after the execution of the agreement for sale. Obviously due to the sudden death of one of the partner , the project would not have progressed with the required speed. Thereafter, one of the partners was arrested on the basis of the complaint filed by the other allottees and had to undergo incarceration. Further, the Covid-19 pandemic issue started in March, 2020 and the same is still continuing, which has also impacted the real estate sector. Considering the said pandemic issue , the

MahaRERA has already issued various circulars from time to time i.e., on 18-05-2020 and 06-08-2021 and granted around one year extension to the promoters to complete their projects on the ground of force majeure issue. Considering these facts, the MahaRERA feels that the present respondent is also entitled to seek such extension for completion of the project.

Order: In a common order dated 5th August 2021, the respondent promoter is directed to handover possession of the flats to the complainants along with all occupancy certificate/agreed amenities as mentioned in the agreements for sale on or before 31-12-2021, failing which, the respondent shall be liable to pay interest for the delayed possession to the complainants from 01-01-2022 for every month till the actual date of possession with occupancy certificate on the actual amount paid by the complainants at the rate of Marginal Cost Lending Rate (MCLR) of SBI plus 2% as prescribed under the provisions of section 18 of the RERA and the Rules made thereunder.

Both the parties are directed to have monthly meetings with regard to updates about the project status. The respondent is not entitled to seek the amount over and above what is stipulated in the agreements for sale.

Leave a Reply

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