The MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal has issued a warrant against Swadhinta Builders for their failure to comply with the orders of the RERA Tribunal, which instructed them to execute sale agreements in favor of flat purchasers. This action aims to recover dues owed to flat purchasers who had made bookings in the proposed building, Sri Vallabh Residency in Kandivali (west), around 2010-2011.
The Appellate Tribunal considered appeals filed by two flat purchasers seeking the execution of the Tribunal's order dated June 30, 2022. This order directed the builder to execute sales agreements with flat purchasers within 30 days of the order's issuance and complete construction within 12 months. Failure to meet these conditions granted buyers the liberty to pursue further action. Additionally, the builder was instructed to pay interest to the appellants, at the rate of the State Bank of India's highest Marginal Cost Lending Rate plus 2%, on the amounts paid by flat purchasers until they received possession of the flats.
However, the Tribunal observed that the promoter had neither executed the Agreement for Sale in favor of the allottees nor paid any interest to them up to the present date. Flat purchasers who had booked flats in 2010 in the project had approached the RERA Tribunal due to the builder's failure to deliver possession of the flats and to register the agreements, despite having received partial payments. The buyers claimed that despite repeated assurances until 2019, the respondent failed to enter into an agreement for sale, construct the building, and hand over possession with an occupation certificate.
In their defense, the builder claimed that project delays were due to extended waiting periods for obtaining permissions from the competent authority for project development. They argued that the pending development plans of the Corporation and new rules made the project financially unviable at the current juncture, and they intended to cancel all allotments. The builder also contended that it would not be feasible for them to commence construction in the near future.
However, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent failed to provide any evidence indicating that effective efforts were made to process a further commencement certificate after the commencement certificate was issued by the competent authority in 2013. The respondent was under a statutory obligation to hand over possession within a reasonable time.
