Mumbai: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) dismissed a complaint of a promoter regarding non-payment of rent by another promoter who provided an alternative accommodation in a redevelopment project. The RERA bench dismissed the complaint after observing that the dispute was between two promoters and there was no agreement signed by the parties.
The complainant, Milan Patkar, an allottee said that she was the tenant in respect of the office premises in the building ‘Nair Mahal’ situated at Mahim which is being redeveloped by another promoter as ‘Ruparel Iris.’ The promoter for the redevelopment project is Ruparel Estates India Private Limited. “I was allotted premises in the said project after signing a supplementary agreement on March 15, 2013. The promoter had agreed to pay monthly compensation for the rent of the temporary alternative accommodation during the period of construction,” said Patkar.
Patkar alleged that the promoter had failed to pay the said rent amount. “We requested the authority to direct the promoter to pay compensation under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act of 2016,” said Patkar.
The RERA authority said the Section 2 (zk) (i) of the said act reads that a promoter means (i) a person who constructs or causes to be constructed an independent building or a building consisting of apartment, or converts the existing building or a part into apartments, for the purpose of selling or some of the apartments to other person.
The RERA bench explained that a person who causes to be constructed a redeveloped building and is allotted premises in lieu of the existing premises in the building that is being redeveloped, is a promoter in the said project. Hence, the present complainant falls in the category of a promoter. The advocate for the complainant represented by Gauri Meshta referred to violation of Section 11 (4) of the act while requesting the authority for necessary direction.
The RERA bench explained that the Section 11(4) laid down the responsibility of the promoter towards allottees as per agreement for sale. “The dispute is therefore, between two promoters. In this case, there is no agreement for sale and hence Section 11(4) is not violated. The issue of non-payment of rent cannot be construed to be a violation of Section 18 of the act either,” stated the RERA order. The RERA authority stated that no directions could be given under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 or the rules or regulations made under for payment of rent. Hence, the authority dismissed the complaint.