Understanding the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RAJ-RERA) Case: Pramod Kumar vs. Jaipur Dream Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

In the corridors of the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RAJ-RERA), a case has been brewing that involves a dispute between Mr. Pramod Kumar, the complainant, and Jaipur Dream Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., the respondent. The case revolves around a property in the "Unique New Town Phase-II" project, and it sheds light on the intricate workings of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (the Act). This act plays a pivotal role in addressing conflicts between buyers and promoters in the real estate sector.

Background of the Case  

The project in question, "Unique New Town Phase-II," was registered under RAJ-RERA with the registration number RAJ/P/2017/231. Mr. Pramod Kumar had shown keen interest in flat No. C-100 and proceeded to deposit an initial amount of Rs. 21,000 through a cheque on 03.10.2020. Subsequently, he diligently paid various installments, totaling Rs. 3.40 lakhs. An agreement for sale was executed on 24.10.2020, with both parties agreeing to a total consideration of Rs. 33.85 lakhs for the unit.

The crux of the issue arose when Mr. Pramod Kumar sought financial assistance from a lending agency to make the purchase but was unsuccessful in obtaining a loan. Consequently, he approached the promoter, Jaipur Dream Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., requesting a refund of the deposited amount. The promoter responded via email, stating that the refund would be made after reselling the flat as per RERA guidelines. Despite such assurances, the refund remained elusive, leading Mr. Pramod Kumar to file a complaint before RAJ-RERA.

Arguments of the Parties  

In this dispute, Mr. Pramod Kumar asserted that the promoter, Jaipur Dream Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., had not fulfilled its promise to facilitate a loan from lending agencies for the purchase of the flat. As a result, he sought a refund of his deposit along with interest.

On the other hand, the promoter, in its response, cited clause 7.4 of the agreement for sale, which stated that a refund would only be allowed after reselling the flat. They argued that since Mr. Pramod Kumar had canceled the booking unilaterally, without any fault of the promoter, the refund would be subject to the terms mentioned in the agreement.

Legal Analysis by RAJ-RERA

RAJ-RERA delved into the heart of the matter and closely scrutinized the promoter's modified clause 7.4 in the agreement for sale. The authority firmly stated that such modifications made by the promoter were not legally valid. The statutory draft form-G provided by the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, holds the statutory value, and only the state government has the power to amend or modify it, not the promoter.

The promoter's claim of refund being contingent upon resale of the flat did not align with the statutory form-G. RAJ-RERA found no similarity between the phraseology utilized in clause 7.4 of the agreement for sale and the actual clause 7.5 of the statutory form-G.

Moreover, the email dated 11.02.2021 sent by the promoter's representative, agreeing to refund without specifying any resale condition, further undermined the promoter's stance. RAJ-RERA concluded that the promoter's modified clause was void ab initio and in direct contravention of statutory provisions.

Implications of the Ruling

The ruling by RAJ-RERA carried significant implications for Mr. Pramod Kumar's case. The authority upheld his right to a refund without waiting for the resale of the flat, as the promoter's modified clause was deemed legally invalid. Mr. Pramod Kumar was entitled to the refund as per the original agreement terms.

Additionally, the promoter faced a penalty of Rs. 20,000 for making unauthorized modifications to the agreement form-G and providing misleading information. This served as a stern warning to other promoters to adhere to statutory provisions diligently.

Failure to comply with RAJ-RERA's order within the specified period would initiate recovery proceedings under section 40 of the Act, amplifying the consequences of non-compliance.

Conclusion

The case of Pramod Kumar vs. Jaipur Dream Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. before RAJ-RERA highlighted the critical role of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, in safeguarding the rights of buyers in the real estate sector. RAJ-RERA's ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the consequences of attempting to modify or misrepresent legal agreements.

This case serves as a significant precedent for future disputes in the real estate market. It underscores the need for transparency and adherence to legal guidelines, ultimately benefiting both buyers and promoters alike. By upholding the sanctity of the law, RAJ-RERA ensures fair and just dealings in the real estate industry.

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-N-2021-4708 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.