Wadala Cooperative Housing Society had filed a complaint against Grace Erectors of Companies, Builders and Developers alleging that the developer delayed the possession of 48 flats and occupancy certificate (OC) to its members for more than five years.
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) clarified that breach of a development agreement between the committee of a housing society and a developer doesn't fall under its purview. "The MahaRERA is not the forum for settlement of disputes regarding the specific performance of the development agreement with the respondent, " the authority said while hearing a case involving a housing society and developer.
Wadala Cooperative Housing Society had filed a complaint against Grace Erectors of Companies, Builders and Developers alleging that the developer delayed the possession of 48 flats and occupancy certificate (OC) to its members for more than five years.
The society stated that it had executed a development agreement with the developer in December 2005 and registered a confirmation deed in February 2007, to give peaceful possession of the 48 flats (measuring 600 sqft carpet each duly constructed and completed along with OC free of cost) to the society within 36 months from the date of commencement certificate. (given in November 2006).
However, the developer modified the plan and got approval in December 2009 and started work. The developer was supposed to give possession of the flats on or before 2012 but till date, he has not handed over the flats to the managing committee.
The developer denied the allegations and stated that this (MahaRERA) wasn't the forum wherein the complainant can enforce the terms and condition of the development agreement and therefore requested to dismiss the complaint.
The authority took the view that by filing the matter, the complainant (society) was making a grievance for a breach of terms and conditions of the development agreement.
"It is evident that the dispute between the society and developer is of civil nature and does not pertain to any violation of the provisions of RERA Act," it said, dismissing the case.
){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}
){kind=small}
 "BUILD")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}