The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT), on October 14, 2024, delivered a significant verdict in the case of Falak Developers & Ors. vs Mr. Abu Saud Niyaz Ahad Azmi. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the promoters, thereby upholding the MahaRERA’s decision which granted interest on account of delayed possession to the allottee.
Background of the Case
The original allottee, Mr. Mohammed Kalim Shafique Ahmed, bought a flat from Falak Developers through a registered Agreement for Sale (AFS). This agreement did not specify a possession date, but the promoters listed June 30, 2019 as the anticipated project completion date on the MahaRERA website. Later, Mr. Abu Saud Niyaz Ahad Azmi, the respondent in the appeal, acquired the flat from the original allottee via a registered AFS. Although the construction was completed up to certain floors, the promoters failed to hand over the flat to the new allottee.
The promoters argued that the original allottee had outstanding payments due, including charges for additional development, advance maintenance fees, and taxes. They further claimed that they were unaware of the resale transaction and alleged that no permission was obtained for the third-party sale, which they asserted was necessary under the original agreement.
MahaRERA’s Observations
Upon reviewing the case, MahaRERA stated that no permission or No Objection Certificate (NOC) is required under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 for reselling a flat pending possession. However, the Authority recommended that the original allottee should ideally inform the promoters of such resale transactions for transparency regarding any dues.
MahaRERA ruled that the responsibility for outstanding charges associated with possession lies with the complainant seeking possession. Furthermore, MahaRERA directed that the promoters must pay interest to both the original and subsequent allottees, dating back to July 1, 2019, even though the project’s completion was extended to April 30, 2023.
Findings of the MREAT
MREAT examined the force majeure claims made by the promoters, which alleged that unforeseen circumstances caused delays. The Tribunal found these claims insufficient, as the events took place prior to the AFS with the original allottee and did not excuse the promoters from timely performance.
🌟 Looking for Landmark Judgments and Orders? 🌟
The Tribunal further noted that the Agreement for Sale did not mention any additional development charges and that full payment had already been made by the original allottee. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the promoters’ claims for outstanding charges, determining that they were unfounded and lacked evidence.
MREAT ultimately upheld MahaRERA’s decision, finding no error in the order to pay interest for the delay in possession. The Tribunal concluded that the promoters had no remaining claims against the respondent and that the appeal was without merit.
Implications of the Order
This judgment underscores the importance of clarity in Agreements for Sale and serves as a reminder to developers and promoters about their obligations under the RERA Act. It emphasizes that subsequent allottees are not required to seek NOCs for reselling their units pending possession. The decision will likely strengthen the rights of homebuyers and allottee by holding developers accountable for possession delays and reinforcing their duty to complete projects on time.
