RERA dismisses complaint of delayed flat possession
In yet another instance of delayed flat possession for a homebuyer, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority on Monday dismissed a buyer’s complaint regarding delayed possession stating that the buyer has the status of a co-promoter in the project. The Authority said that the complaint does not pertain to any contravention of the RERA Act 2016.
Mahesh Pariani, the complainant, stated that after booking four apartments in the project named Monarch Solitaire and alleged that the developer, Monarch Solitaire LLP, neither refunded his invested money with interest nor is giving the possession of the apartments earmarked for him.
The authority observed that the buyer and the developer have signed a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ in 2014, which states that the complainant is the investor in the project and not an allottee.
The authority added that the complainant was to share profit with the developer after selling his apartment in the market.
The order said, “The 'Memorandum of Understanding' mentions that when the complainant sells his apartments in the market then the profit from such a sale will be shared between the complainant and respondent (developer) in the ratio of 70:3O. It means that the Complainant has the status of a 'Co-promoter' of the Project, as clarified in MahaRERA circular.”
The move is being criticised by real estate experts stating that was established to bring transparency in the sector and stop fraudulent activities. Sanjay Chaturvedi, real estate expert and a property lawyer, said, "If the complainant has invested in the project, then the developer should treat him as a consumer. The authority should also observe that the Pariani has complained of delay in possession. In its previous hearings, the authority has directed developers to refund the money in the past."
Chaturvedi added that the project registration document clearly states that there is no co-promoter in the project. “The complainant should be treated as buyer since he has invested his money in the project and the developer has failed to give possession of the flat.”