RERA Complaint
Share this

In the combined order of 3 separate complaints, namely, [Sr. No. 1] Uday Vasant Bobhate and Mrs.Smita Uday Bobhate vs. M/S.Lakadawala Developers Pvt. Ltd., Centrio Lifespaces Ltd, Mr. Nitin Praiinbhai Shah and Mr.Jignesh Pravinbhai Shah (Complaint No. CC006000000196830), [Sr. No. 2] Faiz Ali and Imran Ali vs. Lakadawala Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Complaint No. CC006000000197792), and [Sr. No. 3] Vivek Hari Narayan and S. Ganesh Kumar vs. Centrio Life Space Ltd. (Complaint No. CC006000000198747).

The complainants above named have filed these 3 separate complaints seeking various reliefs from MahaRERA under the provisions of section 18 of the RERA in respect of the booking of their respective flats in the respondent’s registered project known as “Centrio-By Mj Shah” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51800012170 located at Govandi, Mumbai.

Facts of the cases: The complainants have mainly stated that the respondent promoter has failed to handover possession of their flats on the agreed dates of possession mentioned in the agreements for sale executed with them. Hence, the complainants at sr nos. 1 and 3 are seeking interest for the delayed possession and the complainant at sr no. 2 is seeking a refund along with interest.

The respondent further stated that on obtaining the part occupancy certificate on 17-06-2020 up to 22nd floor which includes the complainants’ flats, the copy of the said occupancy certificate was forwarded to the complainants at relevant point. However, it was the complainants who have failed and neglected to take possession of the said flat and make the default in their obligation under section 19(6) and 19(10) of the RERA though it was their duty to take physical possession in a period of two months from the date of occupancy certificate. Hence, the complainant prayed for dismissal of these complaints.

Order: In a combined order dated 22nd April 2022, in complaint at sr no 1, the agreement for sale was executed with the said complainants after the OC was obtained for their flat. Hence, in that case there is no violation of section 18 of the RERA by the respondent as alleged by the said complainants.

It shows that on the date of filing of these complaints at sr nos 1 and 3 before MahaRERA on 27-04-2021 and 19- 10-2021 respectively, the cause of action as contemplated under section 18 of the RERA was not surviving. Had the complainants taken possession under protest in that event, the MahaRERA could have considered their claims under section 18 of the RERA.

The complaint under section 31 of the RERA, can be filed by the aggrieved person only. However, the complainants have failed to prove their locus as allottees in this project registered with MahaRERA, nor have they shown any cogent documents to show that the respondent has ever allotted them any specific flat in this project.

Considering the facts and observations made hereinabove, the MahaRERA does not find any merits in these complaints for the reasons cited hereinabove. Hence, all 3 complaints stand dismissed for want of merits.

Leave a Reply

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