Bombay HC set-asides MahaRERA order of denial of compensation to a homebuyer

A bench of Bombay High court comprising of Justice R M Borde and Justice R G Ketkar has set aside the order passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) which had denied compensation to a homebuyer couple who were already aggrieved by the delayed possession of flat. The bench was hearing a petition filed by one Sharan Bihari and his wife, challenging the MahaRERA order dated 28 November 2017 which had denied them compensation for the delay caused in the possession of flat. The couple had booked a flat in a project named Imperial Heights in Goregaon, Mumbai in the year 2009 and as per the sale agreement they were to get the delivery of flat by the year 2011. However, the couple has yet not given the possession and when they approached RERA, it had not granted them the compensation on the ground that the delay caused in the possession was not due to the fault of the builder. The Authority had also given the builder a further time to deliver the flat i.e. by March 2018, failing which he shall have to pay the interest to the petitioners at such rate as directed under the Act and until he gives them the actual possession of flat. The bench while setting aside MahaRERA's order, held that that the Authority had passed the order without giving any elaborate reason for the same and hence there was a gross violation of natural justice on its part. It further said that the Authority has blindly accepted the vague contentions and submissions of the developer, without following elementary principles of a civil trial, such as framing of issues and allowing parties to lead evidence. The high court also referred to section 38(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which categorically specifies that the order of the Authority must be guided by the principles of natural justice. The bench, hence, directed the RERA Authority to reconsider the complaint and pass the order only after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard, i.e. in conformity with section 38(2) of the Act. The court further directed that the matter will be decided afresh, preferably within three months.