RERA judgement at glance

National commission New Delhi in consumer caseno. 2923 of 2017  titled Visheshsood & Another. versus Raheja developers limited  dated 15.11.2019  held that the Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely as the possession of the unit has not been handed over so far. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Complainants are entitled for refund of the principal amount with reasonable interest.  

 Supreme Court of India Pioneer Urban Land And ... vs Govindan Raghavan on 2 April, 2019CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018  

The Appellant Builder failed to fulfill his contractual obligation of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate and offering possession of the flat to the Respondent Purchaser within the time stipulated in the Agreement, or within a reasonable time thereafter. The Respondent Flat Purchaser could not be compelled to take possession of the flat, even though it was offered almost 2 years after the grace period under the Agreement expired. In these circumstances, the Respondent Flat Purchaser was entitled to be granted the relief prayed for i.e. refund of the entire amount deposited by him with Interest 

 Cearly, not obtaining occupancy certificate is the deficiency on the part of the OP/appellant.( builder ) Therefore, it is necessary to direct the OP to obtain the Occupancy Certificate in a time bound manner. In this respect, the order of the State Commission is perfectly valid so far as it relates to directing the OP to obtain Occupancy Certificate within 90 days. Once the Occupancy Certificate is obtained the title has to be conveyed to the Society within four months and in any case, non-compliance with the conditions to obtain Occupancy Certificate speaks volumes about the deficiency of services on the part of the appellants 

 Supreme Court of India  in Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, II (2009) CPJ 34 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows: “6.7.

A terms of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one sided, unfair and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreementconstitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder. 7. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 08.05.2012 were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Respondent-Flat Purchaser. The Appellant-Builder cannot seek to bind the Respondent with such one-sided contractual terms.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. &Anr. Vs. Union of India &Ors . - 2019 SCC Online SC 1005, has held that remedies given to the allottees of the flats/apartments are concurrent and such allottees are in a position to avail of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, RERA, as well as trigger the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

One sided agreement 

DLF SOUTHERN HOMES PVT. LTD V/S M/S ANNABELL BUILDERS DEVELOPERS” the apex court has held that delay in possession of flat amounts to deficiency in service and builder is liable to make payment to the home buyers on cost of flat for the period of delay in delivery in addition to meager amount of compensation as mentioned in apartment buyer agreement. The court said the flat purchaser suffer agony and harassment as a result of default of developer. Flat purchaser make legitimate assessment in regard to future course of their lives based on flat which has been purchased being available being for use and occupation. The legitimate expectation are belied when developer fails to fulfill contractual obligation.