Insights into the Sachin Dashrath Chorge et al. v. Rite Developers Private Limited Case

In a recent case before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, a dispute arose between flat-buyers Sachin Dashrath Chorge and Dashrath Pandurang Chorge (hereafter referred to as "Applicants") and the developer/promoter, Rite Developers Private Limited (hereafter referred to as "Non-applicant"). The case involved an appeal filed by the Applicants challenging an earlier order passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The Applicants sought clarifications regarding the payment of interest and the execution of a supplementary agreement for their flat. Let's delve into the details of this case.

Case Details:

• Appeal No.: AT006000000052630
• Review Application No.: 63 of 2022

Appellants: Sachin Dashrath Chorge and Dashrath Pandurang Chorge

• Address: 702, Sun Soman Square, Agra Road, Sahajanand Chowk, Kalyan (West), 421301

Non-applicant: Rite Developers Private Limited

• Address: 202, 2nd floor, SS House CSL, Opp. Adarsh Petrol Pump, Nehru Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai - 400057

Advocates: Mr. Shashi Kumar T C (for Applicants) and Mr. Manish Gala (for Non-applicant)

Tribunal Members: Shri S. S. Shinde (Chairperson) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Member)

Background:

The Applicants, as flat-buyers and original complainants before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, filed an appeal challenging the order passed by a learned member of the authority. The Non-applicant, as the developer/promoter, is responsible for constructing the flat in question located in Mulund (East), Mumbai.

Clarifications Sought:

The Applicants sought clarifications on the following points:

1. Interest Rate: They requested clarification on the rate at which they are liable to pay interest on the outstanding amount for the flat and the duration for which the interest should be paid.
2. Supplementary Agreement: The Applicants questioned whether the Non-applicant is legally obligated to execute a supplementary agreement to document the modified design of the flat before handing over possession.

Arguments Presented:

The Applicants' arguments for seeking clarifications and a review of the order were as follows:

• They emphasized that the clarifications were necessary for the proper implementation of the previous judgment.
• They expressed their willingness to pay interest at the Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate (MCLR) of the State Bank of India (SBI) plus 2% until possession of the flat. However, the Non-applicant demanded interest at a rate of 18% for the entire delay period, citing a paragraph from the previous judgment.
• The Applicants highlighted that the mentioned paragraph was merely a narration and not an operative part of the judgment. They referred to a previous judgment in support of their argument that there should not be different interest rates for promoters and allottees.
• They contended that executing a supplementary agreement was essential to avoid future legal complications and requested the Non-applicant to incorporate all design and area changes in the agreement before handing over possession.

Non-applicant's Objections:

The Non-applicant raised the following objections to the review application:

• They argued that the review application was legally untenable and not maintainable as it did not meet the jurisdictional requirements or provide sufficient grounds for review under the relevant laws.
• The Non-applicant asserted that the review application was an attempt to re-argue the case and substitute the Tribunal's previous view, which is impermissible under the law.
• They contended that the grounds cited in the review application were already addressed in the previous order, rendering the review unnecessary.

Tribunal's Decision:

After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal reached the following conclusions:

• The review application filed by the Applicants was maintainable.
• However, the grounds raised in the review application had already been dealt with in the previous order and did not warrant a review.
• The Tribunal found no legal basis to grant the clarifications sought by the Applicants.
• Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the review application filed by the Applicants.

Conclusion:

The case between Sachin Dashrath Chorge et al. and Rite Developers Private Limited before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal highlights the disputes that can arise between flat-buyers and developers/promoters regarding payment of interest and execution of supplementary agreements. While the Applicants sought clarifications on the interest rate and the need for a supplementary agreement, the Non-applicant objected to the review application, citing legal inadequacies. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no grounds to review its previous order and dismissed the application filed by the Applicants.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding the terms and conditions of property agreements, including provisions related to interest rates and supplementary agreements. It underscores the need for both buyers and developers to seek legal advice and ensure clarity on contractual obligations to minimize potential conflicts.

Note: The information provided in this article about Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) 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 REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 63 of 2022 IN APPEAL NO. 4T0060000000 52630 before the Maharashtra 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.

Explore the list of new RERA approved projects in Maharashtra.