SURESH V SWAMY vs LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD (2019)
LEGAL SUBJECTS - Real Estate Law, Statutory Interpretation, Consumer Protection Law, Administrative Law, Contract Law
CITATION OF THE CASE -
C. NO: CC006000000057656
FACTS -
a) The client filed a complaint with the appropriate government alleging that the promoter has failed to deliver his reserved unit No. 301, Tower T8, which is situated in the Kurla village of the promoter's registered project Emerald Isle, as agreed upon in September 2017. In December 2018, the project received its occupancy certificate, and a new completion date of December 31, 2018 was suggested. The complainant, Suresh Swamy, lodged a grievance against L&T Ltd., a real estate promoter, with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). The basis for the complaint was that L & T Ltd. was unable to transfer ownership of a property to Suresh Swamy by the deadline stated in the affidavit submitted in conjunction with the real estate project's registration under Section 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA). The agreed-upon date for the handover of possession was established in September 2017 by the parties' agreement. However, while being far behind schedule compared to the original commitment, the project eventually got a certificate of occupancy in December 2018. The project's revised completion date, which was likewise planned for December 2018, was also announced. By earning interest on the deposits made by him and the other allottees during the waiting time, Suresh Swamy claimed that L & T Ltd., the promoter, had unlawfully plundered him of both his money and the property he was promised. The main question in this case concerned whether the Real Estate Regulatory Authority's jurisdiction ended after the promoter acquired the occupancy certificate or if it persisted for the entire period that the project was registered. The authority took into account both the project's declared completion date and the provisions of Section 5(3) of RERA, which states that a real estate project's registration is valid for the time period specified by the promoter in the affidavit submitted at the time of registration. The defendants (L & T Ltd.) claimed that once a project acquired the occupancy certificate and the registration expired, the RERA authorities lost control over it. In essence, the dispute centered on how RERA laws should be interpreted and whether the authority had control beyond the granting of occupancy certificates or only during the project's registration term.
ISSUES -
Whether the Jurisdiction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority co-extensive with the registration of the Project? Whether Section 18 of RERA is retrospective in operation? Whether the Authority has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint despite the arbitration Clause in the agreement?
DECISION BY COURT -
According to a decision made in the complainant's favour by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the respondents was ordered to pay the complainant simple interest on a sum of Rs. 1, 29, 42, 112 starting on the day of default, or on October 1, 2017, until it gave the complainant ownership of the apartment. The complainant was allowed to use the flat as long as he paid the agreed-upon payment. The court further ordered the respondent to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards the cost of the lawsuit.
IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE -
This case remains a cornerstone in RERA jurisprudence, reinforcing its role as a homebuyer-centric law and setting precedents for retrospective application and jurisdictional clarity. The use of "shall" in Section 18 makes it mandatory for promoters to compensate for delays. Interest is payable from the original possession date, even if revised timelines exist.
Compiled by Adv.Bincy Benny, Research and Training Admin,ATPA.
b)
g)
g)
