In the realm of real estate regulation and development, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, or RERA, stands as a linchpin of legal oversight and consumer protection. As the Law Offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate and Associates, specializing in RERA cases, we delve into a comprehensive analysis of a recent RERA case, dissecting its intricacies and implications. Join us in this in-depth exploration of RERA’s application in real-world scenarios, shedding light on how this transformative legislation continues to shape the landscape of the real estate industry.
Vinod Kumar Aggarwal Vs Jaipur Development Authority
Facts :
In this case, the Complainant (Vinod Kumar Aggarwal) took part in an auction and was allocated a plot within the “Metro Enclave” project, a venture executed by Respondent 1 (Jaipur Development Authority) in collaboration with Respondent 2 (Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.) . This partnership had been duly registered with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Under the auction’s terms and conditions, the complainant had already remitted 15% of the total payment to respondent 1. However, respondent 1 subsequently issued a demand note, mandating the complainant to deposit an additional 35% of the total sum within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply would result in a 15% interest charge. The crux of the dispute revolves around the absence of a formal sale agreement. The complainant questions the rationale behind being obligated to pay 35% of the total amount without the execution of such an agreement, asserting that this practice contravenes Section 13 of the RERA Act. This section explicitly prohibits the transfer of more than 10% of the total amount without the existence of a valid agreement of sale, and the complainant contends that this provision has been violated in this instance.
Contentions by Complainant:
The complainant’s arguments in this case are as follows: The Metro Enclave project was registered with RERA, signifying its commitment to adhere to all the stipulations outlined in the RERA Act. Additionally, during the registration process, a draft agreement was submitted, clearly indicating the project’s intent to comply with the rules and regulations prescribed by the RERA Act. Moreover, the project had publicly communicated to prospective buyers that it was a RERA-registered project, thereby implying that the relationship between the project and its buyers would be governed by the terms and provisions of the Act.
Contentions by Respondents:
The presentation of an agreement of sale is not a prerequisite in this scenario, as it does not align with the broader framework under which respondent 1 operates. The auction, they argue, was conducted in accordance with the Disposal of Urban Land Rules of 1974 and was therefore carried out as a statutory authority. Furthermore, by voluntarily participating in the auction, it is implied that the complainant willingly accepted and agreed to adhere to the terms and conditions specified within the auction framework. Consequently, the transfer of possession of the auctioned plot can only occur upon the complete fulfillment of the payment. Additionally, the respondent maintains that failing to adhere to the auction’s terms and conditions would be unjust on their part and could potentially infringe upon the rights of other participants in the same auction.
Principle Laid Down:
The principle established in this case is rooted in Section 13(1) of the RERA Act, which mandates the execution and registration of an agreement for sale before the promoter can accept an amount exceeding 10 percent of the total cost of the plot. This provision is an indispensable and non-negotiable requirement under the Act, and any deviation or compromise from it is not permitted.
Judgement:
The forum’s ruling underscores the imperative provisions of the RERA Act. It stipulates that the promoter of a real estate project is prohibited from accepting an amount exceeding 10% of the plot’s total cost as an advance payment without first executing and registering an agreement of sale. In light of this, the following directives have been issued:
1. Respondent 1 is required to execute an agreement of sale with the complainant, and this agreement must be registered before requesting or receiving any additional payment beyond the initial 15% already deposited by the complainant.
2. Respondent 1 is urged to align the rules governing the auction with the provisions outlined in the RERA Act, thereby minimizing the likelihood of such disputes in the future.
3. It is incumbent upon Respondent 1 to comply with these directives and furnish a compliance report within 45 days from the issuance of this order.
This ruling reaffirms the RERA Act’s commitment to transparency and justice for homebuyers. Non-compliance with the Act’s provisions can result in penalties and repercussions.
Written by : Adv. Anjali Bablani (D/3376/2016)
Its like you learn my mind! You seem to grasp
a lot approximately this, such as you wrote the e
book in it or something. I think that you could do with
a few p.c. to pressure the message house a bit, but instead of that,
this is excellent blog. A fantastic read. I will certainly be back.