HM Journal

Mr Jatin Mavani v. M/S Rare Township Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra RERA

The increasing number of Complaints filed by aggrieved homebuyers who are being subjected to huge uncertainties in the delivery of the possession by the builders has steered the burden to other arduous subjects as well, resulting in the filing of multiple proceedings for the same object. The case revolves around the concern that – Is it permissible to file numerous proceedings for the same entity?

Brief Facts of the Case:

The Complainant who was the Homebuyer booked a flat in the Respondent’s project for 1.33 crores(approx) upon which the respondent ensured the delivery within 36 months, but it got delayed, also the Respondent did not register the agreement. The complainant accordingly filed a complaint under MahaRERA claiming damages or refund along with an interest of 24%. Even though being heard on several occurrences both the parties were assigned recommendations to resolve the matter, they failed to jointly agree. Further, the parties filed written propositions on the MahaRERA’s record.

Contentions by the Appellant:

The Appellant contended that the delivery was not brought on time by the Respondent even after paying the consideration. He was also not interested in purchasing the flat and thus seeks a refund of the payment he made to the respondent with interest.

Contentions by the Respondent:

The Respondent’s Contentions were –

  • He stated that the Complainant cannot quest for aid under sections 12 and 18 of the RERA Act as he was not an allottee.
  • The changes made in the Development Control Regulation by the government in 2012, altered the building’s blueprint.
  • He further proposed a refund with an interest of 14% to the Complainant which he declined to accept and preferred to continue in the project.
  • Besides, two flats were also offered in place of the earlier one and the sum was negotiated in their price with provisional allotment letters for both the flats on September 29, 2014.
  • In addition, the complainant failed to pay the stamp duty, VAT and other registration charges.
  • Lastly, the complainant had formerly filed a complaint before the MahaRERA as a member of the association (Rising City Ghatkopar Association) authored by the Allottees of the Project where the MahaRERA had already upheld an order dated July 10, 2018 which instructed the respondent to perform the registered agreement for sale with the members of the meant association.

The respondent demanded the dismissal of the said complaint.

Principles Laid Down:

  1. The MahaRERA re-analyze the previous complaint filed by the association for permitting to cancel the booking of the flat without any charges for cancellation and claim a refund along with interest and compensation.
  1. It was also established by the examination of the complaint that the complainant is a member of the association.
  1. The upheld verdict of the MahaRERA directed the respondent to perform the registered agreement for sale with the association and the complainant being a member cannot individually wrangle the complaint amounting to multiple proceedings based on a similar subject which is not admissible under the RERA Act of 2016.
  1. Heretofore, the MahaRERA has already delivered a judgement on the same matter in the proceeding filed by the Complainant through the association, he cannot protest the same issue again.

Judgement:

The MahaRERA upheld the judgement given on order dated July 10, 2018, and counted on the precepts of Res Judicata concluding that multiple proceedings on the same matter are not permitted under the RERA Act 2016 and that the complainant has no Locus Standi to claim damages.

Thus, the complaint stands relinquished.

I opine in favour of the judgement passed by the MahaRERA that if a person has already filed a complaint for the same subject he cannot file a second complaint.

Judgment Date: December 14, 2018.

Judge: Dr Vijay Satbir Singh, Member I, MahaRERA

Court Name:  Real Estate Regulatory Authority Maharashtra.

REFERENCES

  1. Legitquest, https://www.legitquest.com/case/jatin-mavani-v-rare-township-pvt-ltd/14F2F8 (last visited on July 31, 2021).
  2. Editor 3, Multiple proceedings on same issue not permissible under RERA 2016, CORPORATE LAW (July 31, 2021 12:56PM) https://www.google.com/amp/s/taxguru.in/corporate-law/multiple-proceedings-issue-permmultiple-proceedings-same-issue-not-permissible-rera-2016.
  3. Adv. Vaishnavi, Multiple Proceedings pertaining to the same issue shall not be entertained (July 31,  2021, 1:01 AM) https://www.centrik.in/blogs/multiple-proceedings-pertaining-to-the-same-issue-shall-not-be-entertained/.
  4. Law Insider, https://www.lawinsider.in/rera-landmark-judgements/amp/ (last visited on 31 July, 2021).
  5. Sana Khan and Sonam Mhatre, Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 – Milestones in 2018 (July 31, 2021, 12:07 PM) https://www.mondaq.com/india/real-estate/770594/real-estate-regulation-development-act-2016-milestones-in-2018.
  6. Kavya Lalchandani, Simultaneous proceedings a relief for homebuyers  (July 31, 2021, 12:15 PM) https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2020/nov/27/simultaneous-proceedings-a-relief-for-homebuyers-2228667.html.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.