Developer drags Pune civic body into blame game, says it delayed project

The Real Estate Regulatory Act does not differentiate between an investor and a home buyer. A major clarification of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), during the hearing of a case, helped a few complainants —termed as investors by the developer — in getting relief.

Complainant Deepak Peswani and several others had approached MahaRERA against Yash Infracity Realty Pvt Ltd and another seeking interest for delay in handing over possession of the flats. The complainants had put the registered agreements in May 2014, clearly stating the date of possession to be December 2015. The project is located in Baner, Pune.

The developer filed the plea to complete the project and could not hand over the possession of the flats to the complainants within the stipulated date mentioned in the agreement.

Contesting the claim, the developer argued that the complainants had invested their money to get tax concessions through long-term investment.

He claimed that the complainants were not genuine home buyers. The developer further claimed that the delay happened because of Pune Municipal Corporation. He also said that he had applied for the Commencement Certificate in December 2013.

However, PMC failed to take action by July 2016, leading to the delay.

Dr Vijay Satbir Singh, MahaRERA member who was hearing the case, stated that the developers' argument didn't match with the facts of the case.

Importantly, Singh also said, "Moreover, he said ACT does not differentiate between investors and a home buyer. The complainants have been allotted the apartments and have necessary documents of transactions. Hence, they are allottees."

He stated that the developer cannot blame PMC for any delay because he was aware of the constraints while registering the agreements in May 2014, .

"In fact, they should have avoided booking of flats before having all the approvals in hand," said Singh.

RAY OF HOPE

• A major clarification of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, during hearing of a case, helped a few complainants —termed as investors by the developer, in getting relief 
   
• The developer had filed the plea to complete the project and could not hand over the possession of the flats to the complainants within the stipulated date mentioned in the agreement