Skip to main content

Authority under RERA Act, 2016 is empowered to impose interest on contravention of obligations by promoter

In Paramount Prop Build Pvt. Ltd vs. State Of U.P. And Others, as the petitioner, who is the promoter, could not deliver possession of the flats to the allottees in time and there occurred delay, the allotees filed complaint before Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, who passed the impugned orders awarding interest.

The petitioner appealed before the High Court of Allahabad, claiming that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction inasmuch as the power to grant interest, does not vest with the authority.

The High Court however observed that  as per Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which deals with of return of amount and compensation in case the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, Sub-section (1) of Section 18 provides for two different contingencies. In case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, the promoter shall be liable on demand to return the amount received by him to the allottees in respect of the apartment, plot or building as the case may be with interest at such rate as may be prescribed including compensation in the manner as provided under the Act. Alternatively, where the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, the promoter shall, as per the proviso to Section 18(1), be liable to pay interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as the case may be prescribed.

Further, Section 38(1) of the Act, 2016 confers powers upon the Authority to impose penalty or interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents, under the Act or the Rules or the Regulations made thereunder.

The case at hand being one where the promoter has failed to give possession of the apartments, duly completed by the specified date, and the allottees having not intended to withdraw from the project, the proviso to Section 18(1) casts an obligation on the promoter to pay to the allottees interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at the prescribed rate.

The promoter having contravened the aforesaid obligation with regard to giving possession of the apartment by the specified date, and complaints in this regard having been filed by the allottees, the Authority exercising powers under Section 38(1) is fully empowered to impose interest in this regard to contravention of the obligation cast upon the promoter.

It was the considered view of the High Court, that in case of contravention of any obligation cast upon the promoters, the Authority while exercising jurisdiction under Section 38(1), is fully empowered to award interest. The impugned orders passed by the Authority, therefore, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.

The High Court also took notice of the fact that the Act, 2016 was enacted for establishment of the real estate regulatory authority for regulation and promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, or sale of real estate project in an efficient and transparent manner and to protect the interest of consumers in real estate sector; accordingly, the provisions of the Act have to be read in the manner so as to sub-serve the aforesaid objects.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more