MahaRERA Orders Developer to Allot New Flat to Homebuyer After Reselling Booked Units
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ruled in favor of complainant Rajendra Jain, ordering the developer to allot another flat of similar specifications and execute a registered agreement for sale after the originally booked units were resold.
Real Estate Maharashtra:The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), in its order dated July 22, ruled in favor of complainant Rajendra Jain, who was denied possession of his booked flat. The authority directed the developer to allot another flat of similar specifications to Jain and to execute a registered agreement for sale.
MahaRERA ruled that the developer is liable to honor the allotment made in favor of the complainant. The respondent (developer), having received substantial payments from the complainant between 2011 and 2016, failed to execute a registered agreement for sale, either under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) or the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act (RERA). Moreover, despite reselling the flats, the developer did not refund the complainant’s money. The developer has also failed to justify receiving more than twenty percent of the total consideration without executing a registered agreement for sale, despite issuing an allotment letter dated January 18, 2011. Therefore, MahaRERA is of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to relief under Section 13 of RERA.
However, since both originally allotted flats (A-801 and A-804) have already been sold to third parties, MahaRERA held that it cannot direct the execution of a sale agreement for those units. On examining the sold/unsold inventory uploaded by the developer on the MahaRERA portal as of March 31, 2024, it appeared that certain flats remained unsold. The respondent had not uploaded any updated inventory on the portal. As a result, MahaRERA relied on the available inventory to grant relief under Section 13 of RERA. Consequently, the authority directed the respondent to allot another flat of similar specifications to the complainant and execute a registered agreement for sale accordingly.
The dispute pertains to the “Platinum Park” project. Rajendra Jain had sought MahaRERA’s directions for the execution and registration of an agreement for sale for Flat A-804 (or an equivalent unit), possession of the flat, and interest for the delay. The complaint, filed on March 31, 2023, alleged that he had booked a 3 BHK flat (A-801) in 2010 with a payment of Rs 1,00,000. The project was originally scheduled for possession in 2014, but construction saw negligible progress. The allotment was later shifted to Flat A-804 on June 27, 2015, after which Jain made a further payment of Rs 18,00,000 on August 5, 2015 — bringing the total payment to approximately 78% of the total consideration. However, the complainant later discovered that both flats A-801 and A-804 had been listed as sold to third parties on the MahaRERA website, suggesting fraudulent intent on the part of the developer.
The respondents (developers) denied the allegations, primarily arguing that the complaint was not maintainable because the initial allotment had been made in the name of “Rajendra S. Jain HUF,” while the present complaint was filed by Rajendra Jain in his individual capacity. They claimed the allotment was cancelled in 2015 due to non-payment and cited a pending civil suit by the complainant seeking similar reliefs, arguing that it rendered the MahaRERA complaint non-maintainable. The respondents also denied receiving a cash payment of Rs 50,00,000. Shreeji Developers contended that the allotment letter dated January 18, 2011, was issued to Rajendra S. Jain HUF, and that the current complaint filed by Rajendra Jain individually was not maintainable. They argued that no authorization from the HUF or declaration of representation was submitted. On this ground alone, they sought dismissal of the complaint with costs. According to the developers, in 2011, Rajendra S. Jain HUF approached them to invest in the project, and Flat A-801 (875.76 sq. ft. carpet area) was allotted for Rs 1,77,00,000. An amount of Rs 88,00,000 was paid, with the remaining Rs 89,00,000 due by 2014 — which was allegedly not paid. On oral request, the allotment was shifted to Flat A-804 (1052.71 sq. ft.), with an increased price of Rs 50,00,000, which the HUF allegedly agreed to pay. A cancellation letter dated June 20, 2015, and a fresh allotment letter dated June 27, 2015, were issued, requiring full payment within seven days — which was not made. The cancellation was accepted and never challenged by the HUF, the developer claimed. In the absence of a valid promoter-allottee relationship, the developer argued, RERA provisions do not apply, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is MahaRERA?
MahaRERA stands for the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority. It is a regulatory body established to protect the interests of homebuyers and ensure transparency and accountability in the real estate sector in Maharashtra.
What was the main issue in Rajendra Jain's complaint?
The main issue in Rajendra Jain's complaint was that the developer resold the flats he had booked and paid for, without executing a registered agreement for sale or refunding his money.
What did MahaRERA order the developer to do?
MahaRERA ordered the developer to allot another flat of similar specifications to Rajendra Jain and execute a registered agreement for sale.
Why did the developer deny the allegations?
The developer denied the allegations by arguing that the initial allotment was made to Rajendra S. Jain HUF and not to Rajendra Jain individually, and that the allotment was cancelled due to non-payment.
What project was the dispute about?
The dispute pertained to the 'Platinum Park' project, where Rajendra Jain had booked a 3 BHK flat.