The Authority reiterated that only cases related to agreements of sale are valid under the Act.
Setting the record straight, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) stated that sections of the Act do not include cases related to agreements of alternate accommodation signed by a developer and tenant. The Authority reiterated that only cases related to agreements of sale are valid under the Act. The good thing here is that it will clarify the exact scope of MahaRERA, however leaving many types of cases out.
In a recent case heard by MahaRERA on April 5, the complainant, Shrawankumar Pardeshi, stated that he had executed three Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) dated July 2004 with Sagar Shopping Developers. According to the MoUs, Pardeshi was to get two shops and a 2BHK apartment on a plot being redeveloped by the developer. The complainant alleged that the developer failed to execute and register the agreements for permanent alternate accommodation for the said premises and handover possession of the same at the earliest.
During the course of the hearing Gautam Chatterjee, chairperson, MahaRERA explained to the complainant that the provisions of section 13 of the Act are applicable only to transactions that involve an agreement for sale and not an agreement for permanent alternate accommodation. While dismissing the case, Chatterjee noted that the complainant could not point out any contravention or violation of the provisions of the RERA Act, therefore the Authority is not the proper forum to resolve the issues raised by the complainant.
This is not the first time that the Authority is making such a statement. Previously, MahaRERA has excused itself from passing orders in cases related to delayed rent payment by developers in a redevelopment project. In January, MahaRERA had dismissed a case wherein the complainant sought action against a developer redeveloping their building. Last week, the Authority held that non-payment of rent to a tenant by a developer does not breach any sections of the RERA Act. While hearing such a case, Chatterjee disposed of it saying that no directions could be given under the provisions of the Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder.
In another case, when members of a housing society who had given their building for redevelopment approached the Authority seeking possession of their flats from the developer, their plea was dismissed. In the MahaRERA's order, the complainants were held as the promoter (landowner), as well as the developer, that was the respondent in the case, was held as the promoter.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "MahaRERA")
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}