Complaint No.

CC006000000171806

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY

AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI

Complaint No. CC006000000171806

Mr. Rameshchandra L. Mahajan & Ors ..Complainants
Vs
Mrs. Sushila Sureshbabu Malge
M/s. Mount Mary Builders ..Respondent

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51700003889

Coram: Dr. Vijay Satbir Singh, Hon’ble Member – 1/MahaRERA

Adv. Priti Mahajan appeared for the complainants.

None appeared for the respondent.

ORDER
(3rd May, 2021)
(Through Video Conferencing)

1. The complainants have filed this complaint seeking directions

from MahaRERA to the respondent to handover the possession of
the flat and to pay interest for the delayed possession on the
amount paid by them to the respondent under section 18 of the
Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘RERA’) in respect of booking of a flat no. 201, on
2nd floor, in wing-G of the respondent’s registered project known
as “Green World” bearing MahaRERA registration No.
P51700003889 at Airoli, Thane. The complainants further
prayed for directions from MahaRERA to direct the respondent
promoter to withdraw the demand letter dated 22-10-2019
issued to them raising the illegal demand.

1
 Complaint No. CC006000000171806

2. This complaint was heard on 4-11-2020 as per the Standard

Operating Procedure dated 12/06/2020 issued by MahaRERA for
hearing of complaints through video conferencing. The parties
were issued prior intimation for the hearing and were also
informed to file their written submission if any. Accordingly, the
complainants appeared and made his submissions through his
advocate. However, though the notice for the said hearing was
duly served upon its registered email address, the respondent
neither appeared for the hearing nor filed any reply on record of
MahaRERA as per the SOP dated 12-06-2020 issued by the
MahaRERA. Hence, incompliance of principles of natural justice,
the matter was adjourned today for further hearing with the
directions to the complainants to serve a copy of the complaint
to the respondent promoter.

3. During the course of hearing today, the complainants have

informed MahaRERA that they complied with the directions
issued by the MahaRERA dated 22-01-2021. However in spite of
the fact that a copy of the complaint has been duly served upon
the respondent promoter and even the notice for this hearing
was also duly served upon her, she has neither appeared for this
hearing nor has filed any reply on record of MahaRERA. Hence,
the MahaRERA has heard the arguments advanced by the
complainants and also perused the available record.

4. It is the case of the complainants that they have booked the

said flat in the respondent’s project by executing a registered
agreement for sale dated 03-06-2016. The said flat was booked
for total consideration amount of Rs. 57,25,000,00/- out of which
till date they have paid entire consideration to the respondent by

2
 Complaint No. CC006000000171806

availing the home loan from SBI. They have further stated that
as per the said agreement the respondent was liable to handover
possession of the said flat to them on or before 31-12-2017,
subject to payment of full and final consideration amount.
However, the respondent has failed and neglected to handover
possession of the said flat to them though they have paid entire
consideration amount. Further on 21-06-2017, they received
legal notice sent on behalf of one M/s. Thalia Investment Pvt Ltd
stating that their flat has already sold to it by the respondent
vide registered agreement for sale dated 31-07-2015. Thereafter
they sent reply to the said notice stating that the said fact was
not brought to their notice at the time of execution of the
agreement for sale dated 3-06-2016. Only thereafter the
respondent executed the cancellation deed with M/s. Thalia
Investment Pvt Ltd and thereby cancelled the earlier agreement
for sale dated 31-07-2015. Even thereafter the complainant did
not take any action against the respondent for such illegal act on
her behalf. Inspite of receipt of the entire consideration amount
from them on 22-10-2019 the respondent has raised the demand
for payment of 9,39,410/- over and above the amount
mentioned in the agreement for sale. Hence they have filed this
complaint seeking possession along with interest for the delayed
possession under section 18 of the RERA and also to withdraw
thedemand raised by the respondent dated 22-10-2019.

5. In the present case, the MahaRERA has observed that the

complainant has filed this online complaint before MahaRERA on
26-12-2019. However, till date the respondent has not bothered
to file its reply to this complaint, though the complaint is visible

3
 Complaint No. CC006000000171806

to the respondent in its project. Even after issuance of the SOP

dated 12-06-2020, the respondent was liable to upload it reply in
digital form in this complaint. However, till date the respondent
has not complied with the said direction. Furthermore, though
the notice for this virtual hearing has been duly served upon it,
the respondent failed to appear for the hearing which shows that
the respondent is not willing to contest this complaint. Hence,
the MahaRERA has no other alternative but to proceed with the
matter ex-parte against the respondent on merits.

6. The MahaRERA has examined the arguments advanced by the

complainants and perused the record. In the present case, the
complainants being allottees of this project have filed this
complaint seeking possession of their flat along with interest for
the delayed possession under section 18 of the RERA and also for
withdrawal of the demand notice dated 22-10-2019 issued by the
respondent for payment of additional amount to them. There is
a registered agreement for sale dated 03-06-2016 entered into
between the complainants and the respondent wherein the
respondent agreed to handover possession of the said flat to
them on or before 31-12-2017. However, the possession has not
been handed over to them. It shows that the respondent has
violated the provision of section 18 of the RERA and hence there
is substance in the claim raised by the complainants under
section 18 of the RERA. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay
interest for the delayed possession to the complainants as per
terms and conditions of the agreement for sale.

4
 Complaint No. CC006000000171806

7. In the present case, it is also noticed by the MahaRERA that in

this project number of complaints have been filed before
MahaRERA seeking reliefs under section 18 of the RERA. During
the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of MahaRERA
that the project under reference is ready and the occupancy
certificate has already been obtained for this project. However,
on perusal of the webpage information uploaded by the
respondent promoter, it appears that the respondent has not
uploaded a copy of the occupancy certificate / architect’s
certificate (form-4) on MahaRERA website. Hence, the MahaRERA
of the view that if the said occupancy certificate covers the
complainants’ flat, the respondent is liable to handover
possession of the said flat to the complainants.

8. In view of above facts and discussion, if the occupancy certificate

covers the complainant’s flat, the respondent is directed to
handover possession of the flat to the complainants. The
respondent is further directed to pay interest to the complainant
for the delayed possession from 1st January, 2018 for every
month till the actual date of possession or the date of occupancy
certificate whichever is earlier, on the actual amount paid by the
complainants at the rate of Marginal Cost of fund based Lending
Rate (MCLR) plus 2 % as prescribed under the provisions of
section-18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016 and the Rules made there under.

9. With regard to the other issues raised by the complainants

regarding the demand letter dated 22-10-2019 issued by the
respondent, the MahaRERA is of the view that there is a
registered agreement for sale duly signed by both the parties

5
 Complaint No. CC006000000171806

whereby they have agreed to certain terms and conditions

including the payment schedule. The said agreement is still valid
and subsisting. Therefore the respondent promoter is under
obligation to adhere to the terms and condition stipulated in the
agreement for sale including the payment schedule and she is
not permitted to raise any demand other than what is stated in
the said agreement.

10.With these directions, the complaint stands disposed of.

11.The certified copy of this order will be digitally signed by the

concerned legal assistant of the MahaRERA. It is permitted to
forward the same to both the parties by e-mail.

(Dr.Vijay Satbir Singh)

Member – 1/MahaRERA

6
 Non-Execution Application in Complaint No.
CC006000000171806

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,

MUMBAI

Non-Execution Application
In
Complaint No. CC006000000171806
Rameshchandra L. Mahajan & Ors ...Complainants

Versus

Mrs. Sushila Sureshbabu Malge ...Respondent

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800007086

Coram: Dr. Vijay Satbir Singh, Hon’ble Member – I/MahaRERA

Ld. Adv. Preeti Mahajan appeared for the complainants.
None appeared for the respondent.

ORDER
(Friday, 24th June 2022)
(Through Video Conferencing)

1. The complainants above named have led this application for non-execution
of the nal order dated 03-05-2021 passed by the MahaRERA in the
aforesaid complaints led with respect to the project registered by the
respondent with MahaRERA. By the said order this complaint was disposed
of with the directions to the respondent to handover the possession of the at,
if occupancy certi cate covers complainant’s at. The respondent was further
directed to pay interest at the prescribed rate to the complainant for the
delayed possession from 01-01-2018 till actual possession or date of
occupancy certi cate whichever is earlier.

Page 1 of 3
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fl
 Non-Execution Application in Complaint No.
CC006000000171806

2. This application was heard on 23-05-2022 as per the Standard Operating

Procedure dated 12th June 2020 issued by MahaRERA for hearing of
complaints through Video Conferencing. Both the parties have been issued
prior intimation of the hearing. Accordingly, the complainant appeared for the
hearing and made his submissions. However, despite the notice of hearing,
none appeared for the respondent. The MahaRERA heard the submissions of
the complainant and also perused the available records.

3. During the course of hearing the complainants have stated that in the
aforesaid complaint led by them , the MahaRERA passed an order on
3-05-2021and directed the respondent to handover possession of their at
along with interest from 1-1-2018. After, the said order, when they
approached the respondent promoter, it has started threatening them that
since they have approached MahaRERA , possession be taken from
MahaRERA. Till date the respondent has not handed dover possession of
their at, though the part occupancy certi cate has already been obtained.

4. In the present case, the MahaRERA has noticed that despite the notice of
hearing is duly served upon the respondent, it has neither appeared nor led
any reply citing any justi ed reasons for non-compliance of the said order
dated 3-05-2021 passed by the MahaRERA. Even, despite obtaining OC for
the complainant’s at, it has not handed over possession of the same to
these complainants. It shows that there is non-compliance of the order dated
3-05-2021 passed by the MahaRERA.

5. Considering these facts and circumstances of this case, the following order is
passed;-
Page 2 of 3
fl
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
 Non-Execution Application in Complaint No.
CC006000000171806

a. The nal opportunity in compliance of principles of natural justice is

granted to the respondent to comply with the said order dated 06-05-2021
passed by the MahaRERA within a period of 30 days from the date of this
order.

b. Failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay penalty of Rs. 5,000/-
per day for every day of default till actual compliance of the said order.
The said penalty amount will get double per day after every month.

c. The MahaRERA further directs that for recovery of the penalty amount
levied by the MahaRERA, this non-execution application be referred to
Secretary/ MahaRERA for issuance of warrant under section 40(1) of the
RERA read along with Rule 3 of Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) (Recovery of Interest, Penalty, Compensation, Fine
payable, Forms of Complaints and Appeals, etc.) Rules, 2017 for recovery
of the penalty amount from the respondent.

6. With these directions, this non-execution applications stands disposed of.

(Dr. Vijay Satbir Singh)

Member – 1/MahaRERA

Page 3 of 3
fi