BEFORE THE
 MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORIT'Y
                              MUMBAI.
               COMPLAINT NO: CC006000000012036
  Anirucldha Jagdish Keer                        Complainant.

         Versus

  Mateshwari Realtors                            Respondent
  MahaRERA Regn; 51700010188
                                         Coram:
                                         Hon'ble Shri Madhav
                              Kulkarni

                                        Appearance:
                                     Complainanti Present a/w Adv
                              Naik
                                     Respondent: C.A. Kirit Gada

                                Final Order
                              21't November 2019

1. The complainant/allottee who had booked a flat with the
respondent/ promoter seeks withdrawal from the project and refund of
his amount with interest under Section 18 of Real Estate (Regulation &
Development) Act, 2016 (RERA for the sake of brevity) as the resPondent
failed to deliver possession as per agreement.
2. The complainant has alleged that he booked flat No C-804 vide
agreement registered in November 2015. The name of the project and
its location are missing in the complaint for the reasons best known to
the complainant. In the first instance the complainant did not prorJuce
the whole of the agreement. Now, it is placed on record. Accordingly,
the name of the project is Mateshwari Altura and is at Khidkali, Taluka,

Dist. Thane. The agteed price was Rs. 34,57,000/-. Complainant till this
date paid Rs.27,65,600/-, i.e. 80%. Proposed date for completion was
31.72.201,6. It was revised to 31.12.2018 and then to 31.03.2019. Agains:__

                                                                       i-o'
the first demand complainant paid Rs.70,73,600/- on"l212 2015 Second

demand letter was issued on April, 2016 and complainant refused to pay
        -As
it. ,         clate for delivery of possession was slipped by respondent'
Complainant has allege<I that he has incurred huge monetary loss as
there is urgency to have stable residence. Despite writing Ietters, sending
email and telephone calls and personal visits, respondent has not
completed conshuction work. As per MahaRERA website date for
delivery of possession is given as 37.12.2022. There was pending legal
                  ''./
matter which w6feL-kept hidden by the respondent and it was in-formed
that Title of the land is clear. Thus, the resPondent has cheated the
complainant. If the respondent delivers possession by March 2019; he
should pay Rs. 22,000/- per month to the complainant fromJanuary 2019
till possession is delivered. Respondent should also pay Rs 8,08,460/-
to compensate monetary loss occurred till December 2018 Therefore'
 total refund + loss comes to Rs. 45,82,828/- The complainant has alleged
 that as the respondent failed to deliver Possession, complainant is forced
 to reside in rental property and the loss suffered on that account is Rs'
 8,08,460/-.

3.       The complaint came up before me on 24.07.2019. Respondent filed

written explanation. Final arguments were heard on 22.08 2019 As I am
working at Mumbai and Pune Offices in alternative weeks and due to
huge pendency in this office, this matter is being decided now'

4.       The respondent has alleged that he has received Rs. 27,70,100/-
from the complainant and Rs. 5,48,620/ - are due since April, 2017 Vide
letter dated 12.10.2018 resPondent had agreed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- as
compensation for delay in handing over possession At the time of this
settlement complainant was aware that revised date for completion of
project was 31.12.2022. There was suit No. 604/13 in the Court of Civil

                                                                        fi- o'
                                                        was a case pending
Judge Sr. Division, Thane. It is still pending. There
before SDO, Thane No. 148/2015. It was decided in favour of respondent'

Again there was aPpeat No. 141/ 2017 before Additional Collector, Thane'
It was decided in favour of respondent. A mutual understanding was
registered with Landowners on 26.06.2018 and accordingly decision of the

case will not affect the resPondent. Possession is delayed due to above

reasons which were beyond the control of the respondent Respondent
will complete the proiect within next 6 to 8 months. If complainant claims
refund it will create financial problem for the respondent and therefore a
period of 12 months may be given to refund the said amount. Demand
for compersation of Rs. 8,08,460/- is not iustified Respondent is entitled
to claim interest on the due amount of Rs. 5,48,620/- since April, 2017

5. Following points arise for my determination; I have noted my findings
against them for the reasons stated below.

          Points                                                  Findings
      1. Has the respondent failed to deliver possession
         as per agreement without there being
         circumstances beyond his control?                      Affirmative

       2. ls the complainant entitled to the reliefs
            claimed?                                            Affirn.rative


       3. What order?                                   As per final order
                                        I{easons.

       6.     Point no. 1& 2

              The complainant has placed on record copy of the agreement

       dated 05.11.2015. As per clause No. 10 date for delivery of
       possession was on or before Dec. 2015. The initial portion of the

       agreement reads that Late Keshava Sowmya and others owned the

                                                                                c
land at Village Khidkali, Survey No. 144, Hissa No. 28,36R and
Survey No. 145, Hiss No. 2D, 29R. Agreement for develoPment was
executed on 26.05.2008 in favour of respondents. The agreement is
silent about any Iitigation that was pending in respect of land.

7.    Respondent has placed on record copy of temporary
injunction petition in Civil Suit No. 604 of 2013 in the Court of Civil
Judge Sr. Divn. Thane. The application is dated 30.10.2013. Notice
was directed to be issued to defendants by order dated "12.77.2073.
By order dated 05.10.2018 petition came to be re.iected. Late Keshav

Somaiya is the defendant No.1. The grievances6f the complainant,
that he was not informed about the pending suit appears genuine.
It appears that heirx'bf Keshav Somaiya vide RTI appeal No.
148/2075 challenged mutation entry Nos. "124^l and 1316. Said
mutation entries were directed to be rejected. Present respondent
was also a respondent in that appeal. How the pendency of civil
suit or the challenge to the mutations could affect the progress of
the project is not understood.

8.    It appears that vide letter dated 12.11.2018, i.e. 3 years after
agreement, respondent inJormed that litigation was pending ln
respect of land. Complainant has conceded that respondent
inJormed about the litigation in 2017, whereas the agreement is
dated 05.11.2015 and date for delivery of possession mentioned was

Dec. 2016. The respondent in letter dated 12.10.2018 has informed

that respondent will be paying Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation for
delay in possession from January 2017 to Dec.2018 extenclable up
to March 2019 if required. This amount was agreed to be deducted

from the last payment or was agreed to be refunded if last
instalment was already paid. It is clear that u                    *utr,o
                                                      "",,,"-"n,
proposed bY the respondent and it was received by the
comPlainant.

9.    Respondent concedes that Possession is still not delivered'
Respondent contends that possession will be delivered within 6 to
8 months. This settlement is made on 24.07 2019 which means
                                                             that

respondent intends to deliver possession in ian or March 2020 It
appears that respondent has unilateratly extended the date for
delivery of possession to 3'1.12.2020 in the MahaRERA record'
Consequently, I hold that respondent has failed to deliver
possession as per agreement without there being circumstances
beyond his control. I therefore answer point No 1 in the
affirmative.

10. Complainant claims to have paid Rs 27,65,600/- from out of
the agreed price of Rs. 34,57,000/-. Respondent admits having
received Rs. 27,70,100/ -. Complainant is claiming Rs 8,08,460/-
towards monetqiy loss suffered till Dec. 2018 and rent of Rs'
22,000/- p.m. fromJanuary 2019. How the complainanthas arived
at the claim amounts is not understood. lt aPPears that
complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22.08.2015 and Rs 5,92'000/-on
17.10.20^15, then Ioan amount of Rs.20,73,600/- was disbursed on
 -12.72.20-15. Then Rs. 1,55,565/- were paid on 17.10.2015 as Sales

 Tax; Rs. 2,37,500/- were paid as Stamp Duty. Thus, total amount
 comes to Rs. 31,58,665/-. Complainant will be entitled to refund of

 stamp cluty as per Rules. He will be entitted to refund of balance
 amount together interest as provided under Rule 18 of The
 Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
 (Registration of Real Estate Proiects, Registration o{ Real Estate
 Agents, Rates of Interest and Disclosures on Website) Rules, 2017

                                                                  .\- o
      11. Complainanthas placed on record copies of some Leave arrd
      Licence agreements. In the Bank document his address is different'

      In the complaint his address is different. As per complaint he is
      resident of Dombivali. Whether he is having his own house at
       Dombivali is not made clear. Complainant is also claiming Rs'
       5,00,000/- towards mental agony. In my opir.rion a comPensation
       ofRs. 1.00lakh will be sufficient to cover all the asPects. I therefore
       answer Point No. 2 in the affirmative and proceed to pass following
       order.

                                   ORDER

         1) Complaint is allowed to withdraw from the project
         2) Respondent to pay Rs. 3-1,58,665/- except stamP duty which
            can be refunded as per rules together with interest @ 10.35%
             p.a. from the date of payments till final realisation.

         3) Respondent to pay Rs. 1.00 lakh to the complainant as
             compensation.
         4) Respondent to pay Rs. 20,000/- as costs of this comPlaint.
         5) Comptainant to execute cancellation deed at the cost of
             respondent.
         6) Charge of the above amounts is kept on the flat booked by the
             complainant.
         7) Respondent to pay above amounts within 30 days from the
             date of this order.
                                                                            .utr*Y
                                                              d-
Mumbai.                                                 (Madhav Kulkarni)
Date: 2"1 .^17 .2079                                   Adjudicating Officer,
                                                            MahaRERA
415122. 12:52 PM                                           OROER 12036 - AO-MU[,,1] Googte Docs




                   BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
                                                 AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

                                           Complaint No. CC006000000012036
           Aniruddha fagdish Keer
                                                                                      ..Complainant/s
                                                     Vs

           N4/s. Mateshwari Realtors                                                         ..Respondent/s

           MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51700010188

                                                                      Coram: Shri A. L. Alaspurkar,
                                                                      Hon'ble, Adj udicating Officer,
                                                                      MahaRERA.

                                                                      Appearance:
                                                                      Complainant/s: Adv. Avinash Pawar
                                                                      Responderrt/s : CA Ashwin Shah

                                                              ORDER
                                                              (05.04.2022\

                  The non execution application dated 21.01-2020 is filcd as to the non compliauce
           of tlre final order dated 24.17.2019. The Re.sponclent ancl Complainant has filec-l the
           consent terrl dated 24.03.2022 which is signed bv both the prarties. Withdrawal petitiorl
           clated 24.03.2022 is also signed and uploacled bv the Cor-rrplainarrt.


                   I1 vien, of the above tl-re apprlication for execution clatecl 21.01.2020 hereby stancls
           disl-rosecl of with no order as to costs.




                                                                                       dshok Alaspur k{rY4
                                                                                                              '^"'-
           Date : 05.04.2022
           Place:Mumbai                                                      Adj udicati ng Officer, MahaRERA




                                                                                                                 111
httpsr/docs.google.com/document/d/ljts6fd5OPskNoTWJ-zXQxzttieEMw-wnynUpqO5So-4/edit