Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

MahaRERA

Runwal Greens

Mulund

National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Bombay High Court

Ruling underlines the fact that provisions of the law can be applied retrospectively.In a landmark order that is likely to rattle the realty sector, the) on Friday directed Runwal Homes to refund the amount invested by a couple in an apartment in one of its upcoming projects. It also asked the builder to pay interest on the amount paid by the couple (Rs 1.94 crore), and pegged the rate at 2% higher than State Bank of India’s existing marginal cost-based lending rate. The interest will be calculated from May 2017 onwards.This is not only the highest amount refunded to a home buyer by MahaRERA, but the ruling also underlines that the provisions of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, which came into effect from May 1, 2017, can be applied retrospectively.Avinash Saraf and Neha Duggar Saraf had filed a complaint with MahaRera against the developer for not delivering the possession of their flat 3204 in Tower no 7, in Redwood building, in, in, as promised in the agreement on or before August 2016. Their complaint contended that under a scheme promoted by the developer, the latter paid them interest until August 2016 under a tripartite pact with a bank.However, after August 2016, the bank recovered the instalments with interest from the complainants, and therefore, they demanded the amount at 21per cent interest per annum from the developer. Runwal Homes contended that the project had been delayed for reasons beyond its control and offered to give possession of the flat for interior works by December 2017. It also contended that since that agreement for sale with Sarafs was executed on November 10, 2014, MahaRERA had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.Ruling that there was no dispute between the two parties that the Sarafs had paid 97 per cent of the money and that the possession of the flat had been delayed, MahaRera’s adjudicating officer Bhalchandra Kapdanis said the complainants were entitled to a refund of their money.He pointed out that though RERA came into existence on May 1, 2017, and Runwal Greens was registered with MahaRERA as an ongoing project, Sarafs were entitled to get a refund and compensations if possession was delayed as per section 18 of RERA.Stating that “ongoing projects bring with them the legacy of rights and liabilities” created under other laws, the order said MahaRERA also gets jurisdiction over real estate matters in civil court under section 79 of RERA. MahaRERA, the ruling said, can look into complaints filed before other consumer forums, includingon or before RERA came into effect with the due permission of that forum.When contacted by Mumbai Mirror, Runwal Homes said in a statement: "First, we would like to clarify that RERA has not levied any penalty on Runwal Homes Pvt Ltd.The fact of the matter is RERA has issued an order today wherein Runwal Group is asked to pay an interest amount for the delay in giving possession to a buyer for its flat booked in Runwal Greens, Mulund. We would like to inform that Runwal will be challenging this order in Bombay High Court." Kapadnis granted four weeks stay on the order after Runwal Homes moved an application seeking a stay to go in appeal against the order. Theis also scheduled to hear the petitions challenging the validity of RERA in November.