BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI 1 Complaint No. CCoo6ooooool4looo Mr. Nilesh Sawant ..... Complainant Yersus M/s. Mateshwari Realtors Plt Ltd Respondent Proiect Registration No. P5r7oool0188 Along with 2. Complaint No.CCoo6ooooool4loo1 Mr. Yogendra ioshi ..... Complainant Versus M/s. Mateshwari Realtors Pvt Ltd Respondent Project Registration No. P5r7oooior88 Along with 3, Complaint No. CCoo6oooooor4roo2 Mr. Shyam Pawar ... -. Complainant Versus Mis. Mateshwari Realtors Pvt Ltd Respondent Proiect Registration No. P5r7ooo1or88 Coram: Hon'ble Dr. Viiay Satbir Singh, Member- l/MahaRERA Adv. Avinash Pawar appeared for the complainant. CA Kirit Gada appeared for the respondent. ORDER (ztst November, zorg) 1. These three complaints have been filed by the allottees in the proiect registered with MahaRERA bearing No. P517ooo1o188 known as IiMateshwari Altura B & C wings" at Dombivli, Dist Thane under Section-18 of the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2ot6 (hereinafter referred to as "RERA"). They are seeking directions from the MahaRERA to the respondent to pay interest for the delayed period of possession in respect of booking of their flats in the said proiect of the respondent and also possession of their respective flats with occupancy certificate- --L*a u' PaBe 1 of 3 2. These complaints have been filed with respect to the same proiect. Hence, the samewereclubbed together and heard on several occasions andfinally heard on 18-11-2019. During the hearings, boththe parties appeared through their respective advocates/CA and made their submissions. However, after hearing the arguments of both the parties, the r€spondent was directed to file on record details of communication made with the complainants informing the delay in the said project. Accordingly, the respondent has submitted the details on zo-fl-:ot9. 3. lt is the ca se of the complaina nts that they had booked their respectiv€ flats in the respondent's proiect and the registered agreements for sale were also been executed between both the parties. According to the said agreements for sale, the respondent was liable to hand over possession of the said flats to the complainants on or before December, 2016 and in case of Complainant at Sr. No.3 filed by Mr. Shyam Pawar, the date of possession is given as 3t- 12-2or7. But, till date the respondent has not handed over the possession of the said flats to the complainants. The complainants have paid 8o% lo 9o-% amount to the respondent so far. Therefore, the complainants requested to grant relief under section-l8 of the RERA, directing the respondent to pay interest for the delayed period of possession. 4. The respondent disputed the claims of the complainants and argued that there is no intentional delay on the part of th€ respondent for handing over possession of the said flat to the complainants. It further argued that the proiect has completed on site and it shall apply for occupancy certificate within a period of 2 months. The respondent further stated that the project got delayed mainly due to the litigations filed with respect to the ownership issues Further, the complainants have delayed the payment towards the outstanding amount as per the terms of the agreements for sale. However, it has not charged any interest forthe said delayed payment. Besides, it had intimated the reasons for the delay to the complainants and have also paid some compensation to the complainants amounting to Rs. 2,oo,ooo/-. The respondent in their additional submissions stated that if any compensation has to be paid to the complainants, the same is applicable from lst May, 2017. The respond€nt, therefore, requested for dismissal of these complaints. Page 2 of 3 (,vtt^" 5. The MahaRERA has examined the arguments advanced by both the parties as well as the records. In the present case, admittedly, there are registered agreements for sale executed between the complainants / allottees and the respondent / promoter in which the date of possession was mentioned as December, 2o16 and December,20rT and till date the possession is not given to the complainants, though 8o%to 90% amount has been paid by them. lt shows that the respondent has violated the provisions of section't8 of the RERA. To iustify the case, the respondent has argued that the project got delayed due to litigation filed with respect to the ownership issue. 6. The reasons cited by the respondent cannot be accepted at this stage. The said reasons are not covered under the force maieure clause. There is no fa ult on the part of th€ complainants, who have puttheir hardearnedmoney for booking of the said flats in the respondent's proiect. The respondent is, therefore, liable to pay interest to the complainants for delay in accordance with the provision of section-r8 of the RERA. 7. ln view of above facts and discussions, the respondent is directed to pay interest to the complainants from the date of possession in the agreements forsale till the actua I date of possession at the rate of Marginal Cost Lending Rate (McLR) of State Bank of lndia (SBl) plus 2% as prescribed under the provisions ofSection-18 ofthe RERA. Since the proiect is nearing completion, the MahaRERA directs that the actual amount payable to the complainants towards the interest, shall be adiusted with the balance amount payable by the complainants, if any, and the same shall be paid at the time of possession. The MahaRERA further directs that if any compensation has already been paid to the complainants shall also be deducted from the total amount payabl€ bythe respondent towards the interestforthe delayed period of po ssession. 8. With these directions, allthe three complaints stand disposed of. +a ../. (Dr. Viiay Satbir Singh) Member - r/MahaRERA Page 3 of 3