BEFORE THE

          MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
                               MUMBAI


1. COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000057075
   Rosy S Petters

2. COMPL.,\ NT NO. CC006000000078285
             I

   Yogesh Shivali Desh ukh

3. COMPLAINT NO. C00600000007n288
   Goraksha Genu Tandale

4. COMPLAINT NO. CC00600m00078290
   DIip Ba[.rishna Uplekar

5. COMPLAINTNO.CC006000000078292
   Amita ]vlukesh Shinde

6. COMPLAINTNO.CC006000000078293
   Ashish Prakash Sutar

7. COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000078297
   Kiran Ramkrishna Satav

8. COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000078 299
   Priyar*a Pravin llane

9. COMPLATNTNO. CC006000000078302
   Sachin Sfuikant Puranik

10. coMPLAINT NO. CC006000000078303
    Sanju Manohar Makawana

11. COMPLATNT NO. CC006000000078446
    Rupesh Rajaram \'lohite

12. COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000078479
    Rajkiran Gangaram Ingole

13. COMPLAINT NO. CC00500000007&500
   Balkrishna Vilas Tare

14. coMPLAtNT NO. CC006000000078535
    Rajesh Suresh Shevare


                                 1/3
                                             er ,- q,lJ-   --_-{
   1s. coMPLAINT NO. CC006000000071t539
       Rajendra Balu Phule

   16. COMPLATN] NO. CC006000000078542
       Pandharinath Daulat Raut

   17. COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000078543
       Gayatri Maludev Prasad Sharm

   '18. COMPLATNI NO. CC006000000078609

       The Consumer's Guidalce & Protechon Sociew

                                                                    Cc,mpla inants




       Assets Reality
       MaIERERA Regn. No. P51700008568                              Respondent


Corum: Shri. Gautam Chatteiee, ChairPerson, MahaRERA

Complainant no. 1 was represented by Ms. Kiran Shinde, Adv. and M!. Usha Singh, Adv
a/i, Ms. Vidhya Kulkami, Adv. (i/b NKS Legat)
Complainatnos. 2 - 12 were rePresented by Mr. R. M. Deshmukh, Adv.
Complaindnl nos. 13 - 18 did nol appear'

Respondent was represented by lt{!. Ritesh \fishra, Parb:ler.


                                            order
                                        NIa\,09, 2019



   1. The Complainants have purchased aPartments in the RcsPondenfs Prciect'THE
       CHALETS A\4NUE' situated at BadlaPur, Ihane via registered agreements fot sale'
       '[he Complainants have alleged that thc date of Possession as stipulated by the said

       agreements is long over. Thereforc, they Prayed inlsfl7ftl? that since the ResPondent has
       failed b hand over the Possession of the aPartme.nts within tl-re stipulated Pedod, they
       bc directcd to pay interest, on delav or refund the amounts Paid as per the provisions
       of section 18 of the Real Estate (Ref,ulation and DeveloPment) Acl,2O16 (hcrcinafrr
       rclefted to as tltt said Act\.


   2. The leamed Counsel IoI the Respondent submitted that the Project work is tl59i'
       completcd and that outer Plastering and plumbing work is Pending. Further, he


                                              2/3
                                                                       qlr'f--
   explained that the construction work of the Proiect could not be comPleted becauso of
   leasons which werc beyond the Respondent s contIol. SPecfically, he submitted that
   the due to financial constraints, intemal issues between the Promoter PartnershiP firrll,

   stop work notice issued by the Planning Authority the Ploject has got stalled'
   However, he added, that the Respondent is now in process of vacating the stoP work
   notice issued by thc Plarming Authoritv. He also submitted that 90% of the allottees
   are in arreaE of paymerts of theii due considerahon amounts.


3. On review of the Respondent's rcgistration wcbPage it is observed that the PxtPnded
   project regiskation timeline granted unde! section 6 of the said Act, has also expired
   on November 30,2018. Therefore, duing the course of the hearin& it was explained
   to the Complainants that since the proiect registlation has lapse4 the allottees should
   explore thc po$ibility of invoking the Provisions oI section 7/8 of the said Act to
   complete the ploiect through dre association of alloftees.


4. At this stage when the Project is at stand still due to stoP work notice of the Planning
    Authority and since the associatiofl of allottees is already formed, the only way
   forward would be to protect the right of the allottees.


5. In view of the above facts, the allottees are advised to take an inlormed decision
    pertaining to the said Ploject and proceed under Section 7/8 of the Act as Per
                                                                                         the

    MahaRERA Order no 8/2019 dated March 29, 2019 on Revocation of Registtation
                                                                                   of

    Proiect.


6. The Responcient may seek the apProval oI the association of allottees for order under
    Section 7(3) of the said Act, as Pe, MahaRERA Order no 7/2019 dated Febtuary
                                                                                     8' 2019

    on Revocaiion of Ilegistration of Project for reviving and completing the said Project'


    Consequently, the matters are herebv disPosed of




                                                                           .L-d) -        --.
                                                                                   -
                                                                            tam Chatteriee)
                                                                  Chairp        NlahaRIRA




                                          313