The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority opined that as per Section 7 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “RERA”), a project may be cancelled if the Promoter default or violates any terms and conditions of the approval or if he is involved in unfair practices or irregularities. However, in the present case, no such evidence was brought on record to prove any of this. Therefore, the prayer-seeking cancellation was not accepted.
Moreover, For the revelation of pending litigations, the Authority opined that it is the mandatory obligation of the Promoter to disclose all pending litigations on the MahaRERA website.
Brief Facts:
The present complaint has been preferred to seek directions to the Respondents to cancel the project registration under the RERA.
Contentions of the Complainant:
It was submitted that the Complainant and his family members are owners of the property on which the said project is being developed. A civil suit and a revenue appeal preferred by the Complainant are also pending.
It was argued that the Respondent violated Sections 4(2)(b), 11(1)(f) of RERA and Rule 3(2)(e) of the registration of Real Estate Projects, Registration of Real Estate Agents, Rates of Interest and Disclosures on Website Rules, 2017. It was hence, sought that the Respondent makes disclosures and cancel the registration of the project as he suppressed material facts.
Observations of the Authority:
Since the Respondent was absent and unresponsive, the matter proceeded ex-parte.
It was observed that the Complainant alleged to be the co-owner of the project has sought a direction that the Respondent discloses the pending litigations. Since there were no contentions or challenges from the Respondent’s side, the Authority decided to accept the complaint filed by the Complainant. For the revelation of pending litigations, the Authority opined that it is the mandatory obligation of the Promoter to disclose all pending litigations on the MahaRERA website.
Regarding the cancellation of the registered project, it was opined that as per Section 7, a project may be cancelled if the Promoter default or violates any terms and conditions of the approval or if he is involved in unfair practices or irregularities. However, in the present case, no such evidence has been brought on record to prove any of this. Therefore, the prayer-seeking cancellation could not be accepted.
The decision of the Authority:
Based on the aforementioned conclusions, the complaint was disposed of.
Case Title: Sanjay Purushottam Pradhan v. M/s Swapna Shilp Developers and Builders
Coram: Shri Mahesh Pathak (Hon’ble Member-I)
Case No: Complaint No. CC004000000030277
Advocate for Complainant: Adv. Eeshan Sahasrabuddhe
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
