The Tribunal granted part relief to about a dozen-odd buyers who had booked flats in 2012-13 in an uber-luxurious 85-storeyed skyscraper at Wadala and held "The promoter (
In a common Judgment with two separately reasoned but concurring views, the tribunal comprising
It held that section 12 would kick in even if buyers had booked flats well before the Rera Act was passed.
Section 12 provides for compensation by promoter to a person who "sustains any loss or damage'' due to "incorrect statement included in an advertisement or project prospectus. It also provides refund of entire investment with interest if a buyer wishes to withdraw from project on being "affected'' by the advertisement.
The operative part of the Tribunal's ruling was given last December but the reasoned judgment made available a week ago.
The buyers' represented by counsel
The Rera appellate panel said that the HC had clearly held section 18 which provides for compensation to buyers as being 'retroactively applicable'. There was no challenge to provisions of section 12 of Rera then in the 2017 Neelkamal Realtors case where constitutional validity of various sections including section 18 was raised before the HC.
The Tribunal's Judgment said "Rera has been framed in larger public interest after thorough study and discussion...'' It said that since section 12 is also compensatory in nature'' thus the HC findings on section18 would equally apply to it, making it also retroactively or 'quasi-retroactively'' applicable.
Sandhu said, "Principle of quasi-retroactivity, applies a new law to a transaction which is in process of completion."
Sandhu also reasoned that the promoter's contention that retroactivity as held by the HC doesn't effect any accrued right or impose any new liability which did not exist prior to the Act coming in force, appears to be flawed.''
Several buyers alleged breach of section 12 and claiming misrepresentation of time of possession and amenities and had sought compensation under Rera.
But last January, the MahaRERA held that section 12 and 18 of Rera which respectively provide for withdrawal and refund with compensation to allotees for delays have no retrospective application.
It had held that section 12 was not attracted in this case since transactions dated back at least five years before the Act came into effect.
The project: There were two towers one with 77 habitable floors and three podium levels and four basements while the second tower has 74 floors with five podium levels and four basements. The project has around eight acres of green landscaping too.
The buyers claimed that they were promised possession 2017. It was a 20:80 scheme and they had paid about 19 percent of the flat price, around
The Rera Act came into force in
Originally published by Realty.com on
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
204-207
59 New
400020
Tel: 22 4096 1000
Fax: 224096 1010
E-mail: purvi@rajaniassociates.net
URL: www.rajaniassociates.net
© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source