SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(RERA) 1404

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY MAHARASHTRA
Abhishek Sukhadia anr – Appellant
Versus
Ms Pragatej Builders Developers P Ltd – Respondent



Appeals-ATOO6OOOOOO0s33l7 & AT006000000093905 BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA R.EAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI APPEAL NO. AT0005000000053317 0F 2021 IN coMPLATNT NO,CC006000000195842 0F 2021 Sukhadia (1) Abhishek Anuj l Sukhadia (2) Chhaya Anuj l having address al C-2162, Textils Society, l Marg, Bombay Dyeing Lane, Off. VS. l

025.

l ,.,Appellants Prabhadevi, l4umbai-400 -vs-

M/s Pragatej Builders l Ltd'

Developers Pvt. I having address at A1202, K.K. Towers, l Parel, G.D. Ambedkar lYarg, l

012.

l ..,Respondent Mumbai- 400 WITH AppEAL NO, AT0006000000093905 0F 2022 IN coMPLATNT NO.CC006000000195842 0F 2021 M/s Pragatei Builders l Ltd. l Developers Pvt, having address at Flat No.B, First Floor, l Plot No.185, lagdish Building, 15th floor, l

071.

...Appellant Chembur (E), [4umbai-400 ]

-VS.-

(1) Abhishek Anuj Sukhadia l (2) Chhaya Anuj Sukhadia l having address al C-2162, Textila Society, l Bombay Dyeing Lane, Off. VS, lYarg, l Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025. l ...Respondents Appeals-AT005000000053317 & AT006000000093905 Adv. Mr Faran Khan for Appellants in Appeal No.AT-53317 and for Respo n de nts i n Appea I No. AT- 93 9 05.

Adu. Mr. Vishal Gaikwad for Respondents in Appeal No'AT-53317 and for Appellant in AppeaI No.93905.

CORAM : SHRIRAM R. JAGTAP, MEMBER (J) &

S.S. SANDHU, MEMBER (A)

DATE : 7th February,2023.

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCTNG)

JUDGMENT (J.)]

[PER : SHRIRAM R. JAGTAP, MEMBER Captioned Appeals emanate from order daled 27'7.2021 passed by the learned Chairperson, MahaRERA (for short'Authority), whereby the learned Authority has awarded interest to allottees from t.L.2020 till handing over possession of the subject apaftment.

For the sake of convenience parties to the appeals hereinafter will be referred to as allottees and promoter. Since both appeals are arising out of same order and pafties are same, therefore, both appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.

27 Brief facts necessary for deciding the appeals are that, allottees have purchased apartment bearing No.901 in the project of promoter known as "Vishnuchandra Sky", situated at Wadala, Mumbai for a total consideration of Rs.2,02,40,000/- and they have paid a sum of Rs.1,59,40,000/- to promoter. This is a slum rehabilitation project.

Appeals-AT006OO00O0053317 & ATO06000O00093905 This project consists of rehab component and sale component. An agreement for sale came to be executed by and between allottees and the promoter on 22.3.2014, whereby the promoter committed to hand over possession of the subject flat to allottees by December 2015 with grace period of 6 months. The promoter has also allotted two car parking spaces on podlum/under stilt of the building.

3l Since the promoter had failed to deliver possession of the subject apartment to allottees in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale, allottees had filed complaint bearing No.CC006000000 023778 of 2018 and had sought reliefs of interest on account of delayed possession and directions to the promoter to hand over possession of the subject flat to allottees at the earliest.

41 The promoter had appeared in the said complaint and remonstrated the complaint contending that the project could not be completed due to certain financial lssues. The promoter had further submitted that now he arranged flnance and committed to hand over possession of the subject apaftment by 31'r December 2019. After hearing allottees and promoter, the learned Authority was pleased to pass order on the complaint. For better appreciation and understanding of the observations of the learned Authority, relevant portion of the

order dated 4.7.2018 is reproduced as under-

Appeals-AToo6OoooOOO53317 & AT0060oo000093905 "3.The complainants submitted that at this stage, they are interested in having the proiect completed and will therefore not insist that the Respondent pay them interest for the delayed possession as on date, provided, the Respondent completes the project by committing to a reasonable timeline. Fufthe, they submitted that if they do

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top