2023:BHC-AS:25419 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2022 Sanvo Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Mrs. Shital Nilesh Deshmukh & Anr. ...Respondents ….

Ms. Akshada Shetye i/by Ms. Prasanna Tare for the Appellant.

Mr. Tejas Mane for the Respondents.

CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2023.

JUDGMENT (JITENDRA JAIN, J.)

1. This appeal is filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short “RERA Act”) challenging the order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (for short “Appellate Tribunal”) dated 2nd March, 2022 and as rectified on 13th April, 2022. The Appellant has raised various questions of law in the appeal filed before this Court. However, the only question which arises from the Appellate Tribunal’s order which requires to be considered is reframed as under :

“Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Regulatory Authority granting interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act to the Respondent allottee ?”

Narrative of Events :

2. The Appellant is promoter and developer of a complex known as “Marathon Nexzone” at Panvel. The Respondents are allottees of a flat allotted in the aforesaid project.

3. On 27th November, 2015 the Appellant promoter executed a registered agreement with the Respondent allottees for sale of a flat. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the Appellant promoter agreed to handover possession of the flat in December, 2017. However, the agreement also provided for reasonable extension of time for giving possession if the delay was on account of non-availability of steel, cement, war, civil commotion or any terrorist attack, any change in law which prevents the developer to fulfill its obligation, any strike, lock out, any act of God, any restraint order passed by any authority or any delay in getting the occupancy certificate from the concerned authority, etc., which events according to the Appellant promoter would fall within the phrase “beyond the reasonable control of the developer”. The agreement also provided for a reasonable extension of time for handing over the possession aggregating to further 9 months. However, the Appellant promoter could not handover possession as per the terms and conditions of the agreement even after expiry of extended 9 months and therefore, the Respondent allottees filed a complaint against the Appellant promoter with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (for short “Regulatory Authority”) claiming interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act for the delay in giving possession.

4. On 27th June, 2019, the Regulatory Authority passed an order on the complaint filed by the Respondent allottees by holding that the Appellant promoter has failed to handover possession of the flats as per the agreement. However, the Appellant promoter is entitled for reasonable extension of 9 months as per the agreement and further there is no need for demand of interest before filing the complaint under Section 18 of the RERA Act. The Regulatory Authority ultimately held that the Respondent allottee is entitled to interest at the rate of 10.5% from 1st October, 2018 till handing over possession of the flat. However, the Regulatory Authority permitted the Appellant promoter to adjust the said interest against any sum due from the Respondent allottee.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant promoter filed an Appeal No.AT00600000031751 with the Appellate Tribunal challenging the order of the Regulatory Authority on the grounds set out therein.

6. On 2nd March, 2022, the Appellate Tribunal by a speaking and detailed order dismissed the appeal of the Appellant promoter.

7. It is on this backdrop that the present appeal is filed by the Appellant promoter before this Court challenging the Appellate Tribunal’s order.

8. Heard finally the counsels for the Appellant and the Respondent and with the assistance of the cou