BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGUTATORY AUIHORITY MUMBAI coMPtArNT NO. CC006000000078646 I Shoilendro Dwiwedi 2. Priti shoilendro Dwiwedi .Comploinonts Verses Moteshwori Recllors Respondent MohoRERA Regn. No. P51700010188 Corom: Hon'ble Shri Modhov Kulkorni. Adjudicotinq Officer, MohaRERA. Appeoronce: Comploinont: Adv. Noveen wondrekor Respondent : CA Kiril Godo ORDER (Doted 04.12.2019) L The comploinonts/ollollees husbond ond wife who hod booked 3 flots wilh the respondent/promoter, seek withdrowol from the prolecl ond refund of money poid with inleresl os respondent foiled to deliver possession os per ogreement. 2. Comploinonts hove olleged thol they booked ihree flots nos. 7O3,7O4 ond 705 by regislered ogreemeni doted 23.09.2013 for o considerotion of Rs.87,80.475/-. Promised dole for delivery of possession wos December,20l6. As the respondenl foiled to deliver possession, comploinont filed comploint no. 551 15. Respondent wos directed to deliver possession by 31.12.2018, Respondent hos foiled lo deliver possession 'a6erefore comploinonts seek refund of Rs.81,78,379l- togelher with interest. }-i 1 3. Comploint come up before me on 26.06.2019. Motter wos odjourned for pleo of lhe respondenl ond writlen explonoiion by the respondent. Pleo of the respondent wos recorded on 24.Q7 .2019 ond he pleoded not guilty. Respondent filed written explonotion. Motler wos odjourned to 23.08.2019 for orguments. Arguments were heord on 23.08.2019. As I om working ot Mumboi ond Pune Offices in olternoiive weeks. ond due io huge pendency in this office, lhis motler is being decided now. 4. ln his wrillen explonotion, respondenl hos olleged thol totol considerotion received in respecl of flot nos. 703, 744 ond 7OS in B wing in Moleshwori Alturo building is Rs.74.63,405/-. Comploinonl speni Rs.6,19,260l- for stcmp duty, regislrolion chorges etc. ond Rs.3,29,124l- for service lox and VAT. Rs.63,166/- in respect of flot no. 703, Rs.2,06,533/ in respecl of llol no.704 ond Rs.8,21,167 /- in respect of flot no. 705 ore due since Seplember, 2018. Previous comploinl no. 551l5 wos settled omicobly. Respondenl undedook lo poy Rs.9,00,000/- os lumpsum compensotion ond poid il on 24.09.2018 ond olso o lolted 3 cor porking spoces to the comploinonts. ll wos ogreed thot if the project wos further deloyed, rent of Rs.6,000/- per p.m. will be poid io the customer. At the time of setllement, comploinonts were owore thot revised dote of compleiion wos 31 .12.2022 and il wos ogreed in the seltlement. There wos cose pending in the court of C;vil Judge, Sr. Division, Thone since 2013. Plointiff's opplicotion in lhot suit wos rejected. There wos motter with SDO which wos decided in fovour of lhe respondent. Motler before Additionol Collector. Thone wos o so decided in fovour of the respondent. There wos issue of inheritonce between lond owners ond their fomily members. Mutuol understonding wos orrived ot on 26.06.2018. Due to this dispuie, finonciol inslitutions stopped dlsbursing loons to customers. 2 A,O Project h deloyed for lhe obove reasons. Respondenl undertokes to compete the projecl within nexl 6 to 8 monlhs. Comp oint therefore, deserves 10 be dismissed. 5. Following points orise for my delerminotion. I hove noled my findings ogoinst them for the reosons stoted below: POINIS FINDINGS I Hos lhe respondenl foiled to deliver possession Affirmolive of lhe flot to the comploinonls os per ogreement, without ihere being circumslonces beyond his control? 2 Are the comploinonts entitled lo lhe reliefs Affirmotive cloimed? 3 Whol Order? As per tinol Order. REASONS 6. Point Nos- I & 2 - Comploinonts c oim lo hove booked 3 flots ot o lime in lhe project of the respondenl which oppeor to be odjocenl lo eoch other. Comploinonts hove nol ploced on record, copies of the ogreements for the reosons besl known io lhem. Price of eoch flot is nol given seporotely in the comploint. Neilher the locolion is mentioned in lhe comploinl. I oppeors thot ogreements were executed on 23.09.2013 ond possession wos promised by December, 2016. According to respondenl, comp oinon'ls hove poid Rs./4,63,405/- towords considerolion of the flols ond ore slill 1o poy Rs.6,19,260l-. lt rneons thot the totol considerotion of 3 flots wos Rs.80,82,665/-. Why the price of eoch flot could not be seporolely menlioned by lhe comploinonts is not underslood. Since ogreemenls ore nol there on record, ogreed dote for delivery of possession could nol be oscerloined. 7. There is no dispute thot eorlier comploint no. 551l5 wos filed by the comp oinonls. Copy of Finol Order in thol comploint is 3i ploced on record by the respondent. One undertoking wos olso given by the respondeni on 23.08.2018. Finol Order wos possed on the some dole. The comploinl wos in respect of flot no. 703. Respondent ogreed lo hond over possession on or before 31.12.2018. Comploinonl occepled the soid undertoking Comploint therefore. come to be disposed ot. ll is the conlenlion of the respondent thot dote for delivery of possession os 31.12.2A22 wos occepled by lhe comploinonts. Thol does nol oppeor io be the cose. 8. Respondenl cloims lhol respondenl hos poid lumpsum compensolion of Rs.9 lokhs on 24.09.2O18, which wos due lill December, 2018. Thereofter, he ogreed to poy rent of Rs.6,000/- p.m. per flof. There is such a wording in lhe undertoking doted 23.08.2018, H6wever, it is not signed by lhe comploinonls nor it is menlioned in the Finol Order possed by the Hon'ble Member. 9. The defence of the respondenl thot since o Civil Sui't wos pending ond olso motler wos pending before Revenue Aulhorilies, projecl gol deloyed. This defence is not substonlioted. lt oppeoB no sloy order wos possed or no injunclion wos gronled ogoinst the respondenf. Temporory injunction opplicotion ogoinst respondenl wos rejected. Chollenge to mutotion wos olso rejecf ed. Ihere wos no reoson for the respondenl lo deloy complelion of the project. lf the respondeni hos poid compensotion lo the comploinont. lhot will be odjusted in lhe omounl oworded to the comploinonls. One thing is certoin ihot respondent hos foiled to deliver possession os per ogreemenl without there being circumslonces beyond his control. I lherefore. onswer point no. I in offirmotive. 10. According to the respondenl, comploinonls hove poid in oil Rs.74,63,4051- lowords the price of 3 flo'ls. Further, Rs.6.19.260/' were spent towords stomp duly. Further Rs.3,59,1 24l- were spent q fr.c lowords service tox ond VAT etc. Thus odmittedly, comploinqnls poid Rs.84,41,789l- under the promise to receive possession of 3 flots booked wilh ihe respondenl. Comploinonts hove restricted lheir cloim to Rs.81,78,379l-. Whether lhis is inclusive of slomp duly or nol is not mode cleor. So for os stomp duiy is concerned, comploinonls will be enlitled to refund of slomp duty os per rules. Except thot omount comploinonls will be enlilled to refund of lhe bolonce omount logether wilh inierest os per rule l8 of Mohoroshtro Rules. ltherefore, onswer point no. 2 in lhe offirmotive ond proceed lo poss following Order. ORDER L The comploinonts ore ollowed to wi'thdrow from the projecl. 2. Respondenl 10 poy Rs.84,41,789/- lo lhe comploinonls. excepl stomp du'ly omount, which con be refunded os per rules, ond Rs.9,00,000/- okeody poid to the comploinonts together with inleresl @10.35% p.o. from the dote of poyments lill finol reolisolion. 3. The respondent to poy Rs.20,000/ 10 the comploinonts os costs of this comploinl. 4. Comploinonts to poy deficit coud fees in respect of cloims in respecl of flot nos. 704 ond 705 os per Rules. 5. The comploinonts to execuf e concellolion deeds ot the cosl of the respondenl. 6. Chorge of the obove omounl is kept on the flols booked by comploinonts. /. The respondenl to poy obove omounls wilhin 30 doys from 2.'\1 the dote of this order. \2- 1,4 (Modhov Kulkorni) Adjudicoling Officel Mumboi MohoRERA Dote:04.12.2019 5 BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY MUMBAI COMPLAINT NO. CC006000000078646 Shailendra Dwiwedi & anr ..Complainant/s Versus Mateshwari Reltors ..Respondent/s MahaRERA Regn. No. P51700010188 Coram: Hon’ble Shri Madhav Kulkarni. Adjudicating Officer, MahaRERA. Appearance: Complainant: Adv. Avinash Pawar Respondents : CA Ashwin Shah ORDER BELOW APPLICATION OF THE RESPONDENT CHALLENGING JURISDICTION OF THE AO TO DEAL WITH NON-COMPLIANCE APPLICATION. (Dated 12.10.2021) 1 .Final order in this matter was passed on 4.12.2019 and respondent/ promoter was directed to refund the amount received with interest, within 30 days. Since the respondent did not comply with the order, complainants filed application about non-compliance. 2 .The respondent in present application alleged that the execution proceeding jurisdiction lies with the authority as per Section 34(f) and 34(g)of the Act and not with the AO. The Authority has delegated powers recently to the Secretary u/s 81 of the Act ,for execution of the orders. Even Hon’ble High Court in the matters of Arunesh Prasad Vs. Tata Housing and Lavasa Corporation Vs. Jitendra Tulsiyani has held that administrative powers lie with the authority and recovery proceedings u/s 40 of the Act falls in the basket of administrative function. Hence, this non-compliance application needs to be transferred to the Authority. The prayer has been opposed by the complainant. 3 .Heard CA Mr. Ashwin Shah for Respondent and Adv. Avinash Pawar for complainant. Both made submissions on expected lines. Shri Shah cited Judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CRP no. 253 of 2013 in the matter of S. K. Pandit Vs Shri Krishna Swami Devaswam. There dispute was in respect of assets of temple. According to Shri Shah powers are conferred on AO u/s 71 of the RERA for adjudging compensation u/s 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the Act. Section 40 provides for execution of orders passed by AO or the Authority or the Appellate Authority but does not provide that powers are conferred on AO in that respect. Shri Avinash Pawar pointed to Rule 3 and 4 of Maharashtra Rules 1 2017. Shri Shah pointed out that only orders of the AO contemplated under Section 40 sub--seciton 2 can be enforced by AO which means, orders except those about interest, penalty and compensation. Section 40 sub-section (1) only speaks that the above stated sums shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. According to Shri Shah powers directing recovery as arrears of land revenue are not conferred on AO. 4 . Division Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in WP NO. 3221 of 2020 in the matter of Marval Sigma Homes Vs. Rustom Mehta alongwith the WP no. 2627 of 2020, framed issue no. 2 as to whether order directing return of consideration amount with interest is required to be executed or enforced under sec.40 r/w Rule 3 or Rule 4 of Maharashtra Rules. There the AO had directed issuance of recovery warrant u/s 40 sub-section (1).Para 12 enumerates relevant provisions in the Act and Rules. In para 13 sub-para v- it is observed that in view of the above, we are of the clear view that expression compensation as used in Section 40(1) must be understood in the sense of Section 71 of the Act viz. to include all amount that the promoter is liable to pay to an allottee interalia u/s 18 of the Act or for that matter u/s 12, 14, and 19 of the Act. Under sub-para (vi)- It is also clear from reading Section 40(1) of the Act when contrasted with 40(2) of the Act that clear intention of the Legislature was to group all directions to pay or monetary relief granted against the promoter in one category that is section 40(1) of the Act and to treat them differently from all other orders for the purpose of means of enforcement or recovery. There is no valid explanation or justification for treating some monetary reliefs granted to allottees differently from others as has been suggested by Respondent no. 4. The intention of legislature as is apparent from preamble of the Act was to provide for speedy and efficacious remedy to allottees against the breaches of promoters and developers……… Para 13.1 - for the above reasons we are of the view that recovery certificate resulting order from AO has rightly been issued u/s 40(1) of the Act read with Rule 3 of RERA Rules. In view of the observation of the Hon’bel Bombay High court submission of the respondent cannot be accepted that AO has power to enforce orders u/s 40 sub-section (2) but no power to execute orders referred in Section 40 sub-section (1) I therefore, pass following order : ORDER Application of respondent challenging jurisdiction stands rejected. (Madhav Kulkarni) Mumbai Adjudicating Officer Date : 12.10.2021 MahaRERA 2 3 REGULATORY BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE AUTHORITY, MUMBAI Complaint No. CC006000000078646 Mr. Shailendra Dwiwedi & Mrs' Preeti ..Complainant/s Dwiwedi Vs ..Respondent/s Mateshwari Realtors through Mr' Hiren Patel MahaRERA Project Registration No' P51700010188 Coram: Shri A. L. AlasPurkar, Hon'ble, Adjudicating Officer, MahaRERA' APPearance: ComPlainant/s: None aPPeared ResPondent/s : None aPPeared ORDER (n.03.2022\ Theoriginalcomplainanthasfiledthisexecutionapplicationdated2T.O2.2O20forexecutionof the withdrawal application, dared 17 '12'2021 the final order dated 04.12.2019. On perusal of uploaded by the org. Respondent on 21"12'2021' It is apparent that after passing of the final order, both ihe parties have settled the claim with the following contentions' ,,TllcdisputebeftoeenComplainantandRespondenthasbeensettledamicablyandtherearcno abozte named compliant' outstanding clains of complainant arising out of the action against Re-sponda.tt with regard to The Complaitnttt ltereby agrees not to initiate any zlariousreliefspronouncedbyLd.Adjudicatingoficerinitsorderdated4thDecember,2019 before any forun including Consumer Forum' RERA' court etc' TlucomplaitutltunconditionallyzoithdrawtluExecutiottProceedingsinconnectionzoiththe said order of Ld. Adjudicating Offtcet dated 4th December ' 2019 ' ComplainantlrcrebyrequestyourGoodselz,:estokindlygrantpennissionforwithdrawaloftltis cLtmplaint on nccount of amicable settlement"' lnviewofthesettlement,theexecutionapplicationdated,2T.02.2020isherebydisposedofwith no order as to costs. A . .l-- r l'3' z>> Date:27.03.2022 1,[,noilampu,tu.1 Adj udicating Of f icer, MahaRERA Mumbai