RERA Complaint
Share this

In a common order for 3 separate complaints, namely, [Sr. No. 1] Dharmil Dilip Shah vs. Vincy Moraes Sole Proprietor of M/s.Da Vincy Constructions (Complaint No. CC006000000195630), [Sr. No. 2] Dilip Indravardhan Shah and Dharmil D. Shah vs. Vincy Moraes Sole Proprietor of M/s.Da Vincy Constructions (Complaint No. CC006000000195634), [Sr. No. 3] Dilip Indravardhan Shah and Dharmil D. Shah vs. Vincy Moraes Sole Proprietor of M/s.Da Vincy Constructions, M/s. ASA Restaurant and Hotel LLP, Mr. Ashish Shetty and Dilip Yadav (Complaint No. CC006000000195635), the complainants are seeking directions from MahaRERA to the respondent to handover peaceful possession of their 2 flats and 1 shop with all amenities and occupation certificate along with interest under the provision of section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of the booking of their 2 flats and 1 shop in the respondent’s registered project known as “Baylord Phase 1” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51800016138 located at Goregaon (West) Mumbai.


Facts of the case: It is the case of the complainants where they agreed to purchase their respective flats bearing nos. 202 & 203 for the lumpsum considerations of Rs. 66,50,000/- and Rs. 72,50,000/- respectively. The respondent entered into agreements for sale dated 20-12- 2012 & 13-05-2013 with the complainants with respect to the said flats. The complainants stated that they have paid the entire consideration towards the said flats. However, the respondent has failed to register the said agreements for sale with the office of the sub-registrar. The complainants stated the respondent has committed breach of clause 12 of the said agreements by not handing over possession of the said premises in October 2014 and they are entitled to interest under section 18 of the RERA.


The complainants stated that 8 purchasers in the said building filed complaint before RERA for possession of their respective flats with occupation certificate and interest for delay which were heard together and by common order dated 13.11.2019 the said complaints were disposed of and respondent was directed to pay interest to the said complainants.


Further the complainants have on various times requested the respondent to register the said agreements but it has delayed the same. The complainants stated that since they do not intend to withdraw from the project, they are entitled to be compensated by the respondent with interest. Therefore the complainants pray that the respondent be directed to handover peaceful possession of the said flats with all amenities and occupation certificate and to register the same, Further the respondent be directed to pay interest, and to impose penalty upon it for violation of sections 13(1) and 18 of the RERA, and for cost of the litigation. In addition, to this , the MahaRERA further observed that presuming the said agreements relied upon by the complainants at serial nos. 1 and 2 were executed on 20- 12-2012 and 13-05-2013, wherein the respondent has agreed to handover possession of their flats bearing Nos. 202 and 203 , on 2nd floor, on or before October, 2014, the complainants till the filing of these complaints have not taken any steps to established their rights by virtue of the said agreements , if they were genuine allottees. The said delay


has not been sufficiently explained by the complainants. Hence, the claim agitated by the complainants is hit by doctrine of law of limitation.


Order: In a common order dated 10th January 2022, the MahaRERA has noticed that in the present case, the complainants are agitating their claim on the basis of unregistered agreements for sale dated 20-12-2012, 13-05- 2013 and 30-04-2015, however, the said documents have been denied by the respondent promoter contending that the same are fabricated. It shows that the said agreements are disputed and hence, on this count also the MahaRERA cannot proceed to decide the claims of the complainants on the basis of these agreements.

Considering these facts, the MahaRERA does not find any merits in these complaints. Hence, all 3 complaints stand disposed of.

Leave a Reply

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