Case Laws-RERA-REAT

Whether Administrative Officer can reduce the completion period of a project during the registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016? – SV Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) – Haryana REAT

/ 2 minutes of reading

Hon’ble Haryana REAT held that the impugned order has been passed by the Administrative Officer. There is nothing on record to show that the Administrative Officer has been vested with powers to pass orders of the nature impugned in the instant case. It is, thus, inexplicable how quasi-judicial powers were exercised by the said officer. The impugned order, thus, appears to be non est and is declared as such. The same is set aside.

Whether Administrative Officer can reduce the completion period of a project during the registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016? – SV Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) – Haryana REAT Read Post »

Demand letters issued by Promoter for payment of balance amount without executing an agreement for sale are in violation of Section 13 of RERA and unlawful – S.M. Infrastructures Vs. Feroza Noor Mohammed Shaikh and Anr. – Maharashtra REAT

/ 7 minutes of reading

Hon’ble Maharashtra REAT held that:

(i) Despite not executing and registering the agreement for sale, the Promoter kept on sending to the Allottee demand notices for payment as per the payment schedule in the allotment letter. Such demand letters without executing and registering the agreement for sale are also in violation of Section 13 of RERA and therefore are unlawful.
(ii) In the absence of formal agreement executed by the parties, the date of possession can be deciphered from any documents such as allotment letter, brochure, pamphlet, email communications, letter of intent, etc. A perusal of the allotment letter would show that there is no mention of date of possession.

Demand letters issued by Promoter for payment of balance amount without executing an agreement for sale are in violation of Section 13 of RERA and unlawful – S.M. Infrastructures Vs. Feroza Noor Mohammed Shaikh and Anr. – Maharashtra REAT Read Post »

Proviso with Section 18(1) of the RERA Act, 2016 deals with only one circumstance if the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, then obviously an allottee is entitled to get delayed interest only but there is no bar to claim other reliefs provided in the Act to protect the rights of the allottees – Shri Devendra Kumar Vs. Apna Ghar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Trehan Apna Ghar Pvt. Ltd.) – Rajasthan REAT

/ 2 minutes of reading

From a bare reading of Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, it is It is evident that proviso of Section 18(1) of the Act provided for only delayed interest, if the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, but provision is not independent in the nature and must be looked into not only with the text of main Section 18, but also in the light of scheme of the Act, to gather very intention of the legislature as per “theory of Harmonious Construction”, as per law of the interpretation.

Proviso with Section 18(1) of the RERA Act, 2016 deals with only one circumstance if the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, then obviously an allottee is entitled to get delayed interest only but there is no bar to claim other reliefs provided in the Act to protect the rights of the allottees – Shri Devendra Kumar Vs. Apna Ghar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Trehan Apna Ghar Pvt. Ltd.) – Rajasthan REAT Read Post »

If there is a contravention of any provision of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which is not punishable under Section 59 or the rules or regulations, by the promoter, he shall be punishable under Section 61 of the RERA Act – Navkar Devcon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority – Chhattisgarh REAT

/ 1 minute of reading

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

If there is a contravention of any provision of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which is not punishable under Section 59 or the rules or regulations, by the promoter, he shall be punishable under Section 61 of the RERA Act – Navkar Devcon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority – Chhattisgarh REAT Read Post »

Common areas and amenities of the project cannot be controlled by the builders – Sangita and Ors. Vs. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan (RERA) through its Registrar and Anr. – Rajasthan REAT

/ 1 minute of reading

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Common areas and amenities of the project cannot be controlled by the builders – Sangita and Ors. Vs. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Rajasthan (RERA) through its Registrar and Anr. – Rajasthan REAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top