MahaRERA terms developer unethical with unscrupulous behaviour

MahaRERA termed a developer as unethical, his behaviour unscrupulous and his act bad in law, after he cancelled the booking of a homebuyer. According to the documents obtained by DNA, the developer had accepted the money from the homebuyer in the same month when he had cancelled the deal.

Homebuyer Chauthiprasad then approached the MahaRERA to complain against the developer Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt Ltd. Gupta had booked an apartment in the developer's project NL Aryavarta in Dahisar. Gupta asked the authority to withdraw the termination letter dated December 23, 2015 that was issued by the developer. He also had sought interest on the amount he had paid to the developer or remove the interest levied on him because of a delayed payment.

Gupta had argued that he hod booked a 3 BHK flat in the year 2011 and paid more than 60 per cent of the total consideration amount. Thereafter, the project was stopped by the developer in the year 2014-2015. The project was later re-started with a new name and an enhanced area, thus increasing the cost of the flat. The developer then executed and registered the sale agreement dated February 5, 2015 with the homebuyer.

The latter has already paid an amount of Rs 90,98,860, including stamp duty and registration charges till construction of the 15th slab of the building up to December 22, 2015. However, the developer terminated the agreement unilaterally, without giving any opportunity to the homebuyer.

The developer disputed the claim of the complainants and stated that since the termination of the agreement was done prior to the commencement of the RERA Act, this authority has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complainant. The authority held otherwise and said till the project is completed and as it is registered with MahaRERA, the authority had jurisdiction.

The developer also stated that he had sent the termination notice to the homebuyer and had even published the notice in a newspaper. He said that the default of payment was the reason behind the termination. The builder further stated that after the cancellation of the agreement, he sold the flat to a third party and hence cannot allot the same to the complainant and requested for the dismissal of the complaint.

The authority held that the essence of the termination as alleged by the respondent was due to the default in payment by Gupta. However, Gupta had submitted a payment chart to the authority, which clearly shows that the complainants have made last payment on December 22. The payment was even accepted by the developer. While on one hand the developer had accepted the payment, on the other he had issued the letter of cancellation in the same month.

"This shows very clearly the unethical and unscrupulous behaviour of the promoter." Moreover, the authority held that the termination notice was not duly served upon the complainants. The developer has not produced any cogent documentary proof on record of this authority showing that the complainants are habitual defaulters, therefore, the cancellation is bad in law.The authority also held that there was no evidence in term of creating third party rights.

While disposing the complaint, Dr Vijay Satbir Singh held that, "In view of the facts of this case and above observations, this authority hereby holds that the registered agreement for sale executed between the complainants and the respondent is valid and subsisting and binding upon both the parties."

When contacted the developer's office, this reporter was told that the legal department will get in touch and that the directors were not present for any comments.