Mr. Rajendra Kumar Vijayvargia

It is the only duty of the promoter to execute Agreement to Sale, not the duty of the allottee to seek the Agreement to Sale executed | Interest on refund cannot be denied on the ground that no Agreement to Sale was executed between the Allottee and Promoter – Renu Singhal Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation – Rajasthan REAT

Hon’ble Rajasthan REAT held that a bare perusal of Section 13 read with Section 19 of the RERA Act, 2016, it is the only duty of the promoter to execute “Agreement to Sale”, if more than 10% cost of the apartment has been accepted. Section 19(1) provides that the allottee shall be entitled to obtain the information relating to sanctioned plans etc. including the information as per the “Agreement to Sale” signed with the promoter. It is not the duty of the allottee to seek the “Agreement to Sale” executed, rather allottee has right to obtain information as desired under Section 13 of the Act of 2016, regarding the “Agreement”, and the promoter is duty bound to get the “Agreement to Sale” executed in compliance of Section 13 of the Act of 2016.

It is the only duty of the promoter to execute Agreement to Sale, not the duty of the allottee to seek the Agreement to Sale executed | Interest on refund cannot be denied on the ground that no Agreement to Sale was executed between the Allottee and Promoter – Renu Singhal Vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation – Rajasthan REAT Read Post »

The allottees cannot truly possess and enjoy their properties be it an apartment, building or villa, without they having right to common areas | Completion Certificate as defined under Section 2(q) of RERA, 2016 has to be within the meaning and in consonance with the other provisions of the Act and it cannot be read in isolation – South Ex Residents Welfare Society Vs. Virgo Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Rajasthan REAT

Hon’ble Rajasthan REAT held that:
(i) Mere construction of a building is insufficient. The word “completion” is indicative of the fact that it must be complete in all respects and the allottees must have common access and peaceful living.
(ii) “Completion Certificate” is defined under Section 2(q). Therefore, a “Completion Certificate” has to be within the meaning and in consonance with the other provisions of the Act of 2016, and it cannot be read in isolation.
(iii) The promoter-builder cannot unilaterally revise the plan in the face of the text of Section 14 of the Act of 2016. Specific consent is relatable to the particular project or the scheme of development, which was intended to be implemented.
(iv) The allottees cannot truly possess and enjoy their properties be it an apartment, building or villa, without they having right to common areas. Thus, the promoter is bound under Section 17 of the Act of 2016, to transfer title of the common areas to the Association.

The allottees cannot truly possess and enjoy their properties be it an apartment, building or villa, without they having right to common areas | Completion Certificate as defined under Section 2(q) of RERA, 2016 has to be within the meaning and in consonance with the other provisions of the Act and it cannot be read in isolation – South Ex Residents Welfare Society Vs. Virgo Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Rajasthan REAT Read Post »

An allottee cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession and in absence of any period, a period of three years appears to be just and proper to complete the project and hand over possession to the allottees in accordance with law in the backdrop of legislative intent of the RERA, 2016 – Sequin Real Estate Vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta – Rajasthan REAT

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

An allottee cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession and in absence of any period, a period of three years appears to be just and proper to complete the project and hand over possession to the allottees in accordance with law in the backdrop of legislative intent of the RERA, 2016 – Sequin Real Estate Vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta – Rajasthan REAT Read Post »

Scroll to Top