Q. Section 3 of RERA exempts real estate projects with less than 500 sq mt plot area from mandatory registration. Gan a home buyer file a complaint with MahaRERA against a builder of such an exempted real estate project, for the delay in giving possession? Is the builder of such an exempted project liable to comply with obligations given under RERA such as interest payment for delayed possession or for a refund with interest and compensation in case of cancellation? —Alok Hardikar, Vile Parle (East)
A. Section 3 (1) RERA says that “no promoter can advertise. market, book, sell or offer for sale any plot, apartment or building in any real estate project in any planning area without registering the same with the regulatory authority established under RERA™. Further, seetion 3 (2) (a) provides exemptions from such mandatory registration of real estate projects where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 sq mt or the number of apartments proposed to be constructed does not exceed eight. There is confusion on this issue and the legal opinion is divided on it. MahaRERA has taken a view that the real estate projects which are exempted under sections 3 (2) (a) are also exempred from the ambit of RERA.
As far as MahaRERA is concerned, no complaints of homebuyers from such exempted projects are entertained by MahaRERA even if the complaints are about delay in giving possession or getting a refund along with interest and compensation in such delayed projects. Recently, the Bombay High Court held that the RERA Act does not apply to stich exempted real estate projects. However I respectfully differ with this finding. RERA is meant to regulate the entire real estate sector and not only the projects registered under RERA. If that was the intention of the parliament, the RERA Act would have stated the same. Notably, every definition of allottee, promoter and real estate project in RERA is not confined to only registered real estate projects. Section 11 {4) (&) of RERA requires the promoters to form an association of allottees within three months of the majority of the allottees having booked their flats.
Section 17 provides for executing the convevance of the property within three months from occupancy date. Section 18 provides that the promoter is liable to pay interest to the allottes per manth at the rate prescribed in the rule in case of delay in giving possession of the apartment/flat and if the allottee wishes to cancel the booking and exit due to delay, the promoter is liable to refund the amount with interest at the preseribed interest rate and compensation for losses due to delay. Further, section 31 (1) of RERA reads as follows: “Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the authority or the adjudicating officer fior any violation or contravention of the provisions of this act, rules or regulations against any promoter.” There is no exception to this provision.
If the parliament intended to restrict the scope of RERA to only registered projects and exempt certain RERA projects from not only registration but also from the purview of the RERA Act, it would have made its intention very clear by stating so. Even sections 11, 13,17 and 18 would have gqualified that these obligations of promaoters are applicable to allottees of only registered projects. When it is held that the exempted projects are also exempted from RERA, it means that allottees in such exempted projects are legally allowed to be exploited by the promoters and RERA authority cannot give any relief to such allottees. Henee it is my considered opinion that the view taken by MahaRERA and even by HC s erroneous and contrary to the parliamentary intention. In such a situation, until the HC judgment is overruled by the division bench, the affected homebuyers can approach consumer commissions for appropriate relief.
{Advocate Shirish V Deshpande is chairman, Mumbal Grahak Panchayat. Queries can be sent to him on email: shirish50i@yahoo.com)
