Mumbai: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has directed Kiyana Ventures L.L.P's project 'Kalpataru Radiance' at Pahadi, Goregaon, to pay two homebuyers yearly interest at the rate of 9 per cent on the consideration amount paid till they receive possession of the flat.
Homebuyers Paresh Kranti Parihar and Vandana Paresh Parihar had booked a flat in Kalpataru Radiance. The agreement of sale was signed with a promise of possession on or before December 31, 2016. Of Rs 3.24 crore, they paid Rs 3.08 crore (95 percent), but did not receive possession despite paying such a large sum.
They, therefore, demanded interest on their investment for delayed possession. They alleged that the developer did not attach the IOD and CC of the project with the agreement, and thereby did not disclose the true facts and thus violated RERA.
Advocate Vipul Joshi, appearing for the complainants, submitted that even if it is taken for granted that the respondents could not obtain OC due to a dispute between MHADA and Guru Ashish Construction Pvt Ltd (GACPL), a period of six months can be granted as per section 8(b) under MOFA and if the promoter (developer) is prevented by cause beyond his control from completing the project on time. However, extension beyond 6 months cannot be given.
Advocate Abir Patel appearing for the Kiyana Ventures filed an application to keep the matter on "Sine Die List" by contending that MHADA entered into a Joint Development Agreement in 2008 with GACPL, sister concern of HDIL. MHADA gave developmental rights to GAPCL on the consideration that it shall handover 672 tenements (Patra Chawl tenants) to MHADA free of cost in rehab component. In 2011 it permitted GACPL to create third party rights in respect of free sale component. Following this, Kiyana Ventures received development rights from GACPL. It constructed four buildings A, B, C and D.
A private bank, creditor of GACPL initiated corporate insolvency resolution process section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and application admitted by National Company Law Tribunal. Thereafter, MHADA terminated the joint development agreement. Patel said the client had approached Bombay HC against MHADA seeking issuance of necessary directions to MHADA to issue completion/OC. Also, other flat purchasers in the same layout had filed an interim application in February 2020 seeking issuance of OC by MHADA and various buildings in the layout by contending that 1,000 flat purchasers from different developers should not be penalised for default of GACPL and HDIL towards MHADA.
Since the matter is pending for hearing, the complaint should be put on hold till a decision on those suits, Patel contended.
MahaRERA observed that the relief claimed by the complainants are totally different from that claimed by the plaintiffs of those suits, and authority is empowered to grant the reliefs.
