Hitesh Saini Wins Against Shyam Sharma Suparas Homz Pvt. Ltd., Setting Precedence for Homebuyer Protection

In a significant ruling by the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), the case of Hitesh Saini vs. Shyam Sharma Suparas Homz Pvt. Ltd. sheds light on the crucial role RERA plays in protecting the rights of homebuyers and ensuring accountability in the real estate sector. In this in-depth article, we will delve into the details of this case and understand its implications.

Case Details:

Complaint No.: RAJ-RERA-C-2019-3011

Date of Order: 16.02.2023

Background:

The case revolves around the Suparas City Phase-I project developed by Shyam Sharma Suparas Homz Pvt. Ltd. Hitesh Saini, the complainant, had booked Plot No. 140 in the project, which was not registered with the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The complainant had already paid Rs. 9,89,396/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 13,19,200/-. However, despite the allotment being issued on 20.11.2014, the possession of the plot was not delivered to the complainant.

About Suparas City :

In Suparas City, Suparas Homz Pvt. Ltd. is in charge of building out Phase 1 of residential properties. This lot is available at Khushkhera, Bhiwadi. The lots in this development come in a range of sizes. There is a 900.0 square foot minimum and a 1350.0 square foot maximum for plot sizes. July 2013 release date. There are 250 apartments in Suparas City's first phase. Gurgaon's Sector 94 Bhiwadi is home to Suparas City Phase 1.

The quality of living in Suparas City Phase 1 is high on most people's wish lists. Athletic facilities are available. There are also courts for tennis, badminton, cycling, and jogging. There is also a community hall and a health centre.

developer Suparas Homz Pvt. Ltd., established in 2004. With 8 employees presently, customer satisfaction is a top priority. The Suparas City, Phase 1 pamphlet provides extra details.Khushkhera is well-connected to the rest of the city by road. Places of employment, entertainment, education, and healthcare are all within easy driving distance from this residential area.

Legal Proceedings:

To address the complaint, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 24.01.2020, with subsequent reminders sent on 12.02.2020 and 13.02.2020. Efforts were made to elicit a response from the promoter, including a speed post and email on 28.05.2020 and 11.09.2020, respectively. However, no reply was received. The case was scheduled for hearings on several occasions, but neither party appeared, leading the Authority to proceed with the adjudication of the complaint.

RERA's Jurisdiction:

It is crucial to note that the Suparas City project was not registered with the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority. In a related case, Ranu Agarwal (Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2019-3012), it was established that ongoing projects must be registered with the Authority. Therefore, the Authority held jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint.

Order and Findings:

Upon examining the available records, it was established that a provisional allotment letter for Plot No. 140 had been issued, and various receipts from 2013 and 2014 were presented as proof of payment made prior to the enactment of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Despite multiple attempts to engage the respondent, no response or agreement for sale was provided. As a result, the Authority found it to be a clear case of non-delivery of possession despite the complainant fulfilling their obligations. Thus, the complainant was entitled to relief under section 19 (4) read with 12 of the Act.

The Authority directed the promoter to refund the deposited amount to the complainant, along with interest calculated at 8.6% of the highest MCLR of SBI plus 2% from the date of deposit. The promoter was instructed to complete the refund within 45 days of uploading the order on the Authority's webpage.

Additionally, it was specified that failure to comply with the order would result in the complainant being permitted to file an application for execution within two years. In such a scenario, recovery proceedings would be remitted to the concerned District Collector under section 40(1) of the Act.

Conclusion:

The Hitesh Saini vs. Shyam Sharma Suparas Homz Pvt. Ltd. case serves as a significant precedent for RERA's commitment to safeguarding the interests of homebuyers. The ruling emphasizes the importance of project registration, adherence to legal obligations, and timely possession delivery. Through its rigorous enforcement and adjudication, RERA continues to foster transparency, accountability, and consumer protection in the real estate sector.

Note: The information provided in this article about Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RRERA) is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal or professional advice and readers should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. The information provided in this article is based on the Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2019-3011 before the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority

We hope you found our blog insightful and engaging! We appreciate your time and interest. If you enjoyed reading it, don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our latest content. Visit our website www.reunionhq.in to know more.