It is a truism that buying a house is one of the most difficult of enterprises for most Indians today. You cannot do without it and many builders take advantage of that to fleece the innocent homebuyers. However, in this case, homebuyers taught this builder a big lesson. Homebuyers, Kushal Kadam, Samir Kadam, Sudha Saokar and Vijay Saokar lodged a complaint with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority against a building developer building developer upon delayed possession. 

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

The complainants said that they had purchased apartments at the Hubtown Sunmist project during its under construction period and the builder failed to hand over the possession of the flats within the stipulated time. The customers claimed that the developer must hence be directed to pay interest as per provisions of the RERA Act. 

According to a report by DNA, the counsel for the developer, however, said the project was delayed for reasons beyond their control. The developer also claimed to have applied for occupation certificate in June 2017, but received it only in June 2018. The homebuyers were then asked to take possession, but they allegedly refused to do so.

The developer also claimed that in 2015 and 2016, he offered a refund of the amounts paid to him by the complainants, since completion was likely to be delayed. To this, the complainants declined the offer and chose to wait, as per the developer.

Watch this Zee Business video here:

The complainants also claimed they were allowed to take possession of the houses only after making payment of the balance amount over the course of the hearing. Although after paying the balance amount and taking possession of their respective flats, the developer didn't give them the access to the club house.

The builder ultimately, had to return 5% of the total money paid to him by the homebuyers. 

Gautam Chaterjee, MahaRERA chairman, said that since the promoter failed to give possession in accordance with the agreement for sale, RERA provisions don’t apply in this case, while passing the order. “On the basis of the arguments made by counsel for the developer, a six-month period (July to December 2017) shall be allowed to be condoned for the period of obtaining an OC, but the complainant cannot be made to suffer thereafter,” the order read, as cited by DNA.