Deen Dayal Awas Yojana (DDJAY) project
Share this

In the matter of Anil Lale and Bidushi Lale vs. Rajsanket Realty Ltd. (Complaint No. CC006000000100463), the complainants above named have filed this complaint seeking directions from MahaRERA to the respondent to refund the entire amount paid along with interest 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 a flat bearing no. 1211 admeasuring 1035 square feet carpet area, on the 12th floor of the C Wing of the respondent’s registered project known as “Rajinfinia Phase II Wing A Wing B Wing C” bearing MahaRERA registration No. P51800012243 located at Malad West, Mumbai.


Facts of the case: It is the case of the complainants that they booked the said flat in the respondent’s project for a total consideration of Rs. 2,43,06,628/- inclusive of taxes, stamp duty and registration charges. Accordingly, they made payment of Rs. 48,61,325/- being the 20% of the total consideration and thereafter ICICI Bank Ltd. sanctioned the loan out of which an amount of Rs. 1,83,38,903/- was disbursed directly to the respondent after which the respondent entered into an agreement for sale dated 06th August 2013 in respect of the said flat, but the complainants noticed that the date of delivery of possession of the said flat was intentionally left blank by the respondent and on enquiry, they were orally assured that possession of the flat would be delivered to them by the year 2016.


Thereafter, on meeting the representative of the respondent, it admitted its inability to deliver the possession of the said flat and agreed to the complainants’ request for withdrawal from the said project. It also agreed to settle the dispute through a Settlement Agreement dated 14th August 2018 upon terms and conditions agreed therein under which the respondent agreed to refund with an interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of payment till the date of refund.


The respondent refuted this complaint, claiming that it is not covered by RERA but rather by MOFA and that MahaRERA has the authority to hear it because it came from a facility arrangement that was signed with ICICI Bank. Additionally, the respondent consented to give the complainants possession of the aforementioned apartment on the date specified on the MahaRERA website. Even more clearly stated is the fact that the complainants are essentially creditors who have also filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as a result of the settlement agreement dated 14th August 2018. The RERA will also have precedence over all other Acts. As a result, the MahaRERA has the authority to address this complaint.


Order: According to a ruling dated March 25, 2022, the complainants are free to leave the project in question. The respondent promoter is required to return the whole amount paid by the complainants as well as interest at the rate set forth by MahaRERA, i.e., the State Bank of India’s (SBI) Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2%, within two months. The response promoter is solely required to repay the bank’s dues, which include the loan amount and any applicable interest.


The respondent shall be liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- per day of default until the actual date compliance of the aforesaid order of MahaRERA as provided under section 63 of the RERA if the refund of the entire amount to the complainants is not made within the allotted time period of two months. Additionally, it is mandated that the aforementioned penalty sum doubles for each month that the respondent is in default up until the order is actually followed.

Leave a Reply

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