- Papers forged, Haryana-Rera revokes real estate agent’s registration
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (H-Rera) has revoked the Rera registration certificate of a real estate agent after it found that he submitted forged documents at the time of application. It has also initiated an inquiry into the matter.
Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016, it is mandatory for a real estate agent to obtain a Rera registration number. The applicant has to submit documents, including that of commercial office space — self-owned or rented — as address proof duly certified by the district revenue department at time of applying.
According to H-Rera officials, agent Vineet Kejriwal forged the documents with mala fide intention amounting to a serious offence, so his registration number was revoked. Kejriwal was registered as a real estate agent with the H-Rera vide registration number RC/HARERA/GGM/1 697/1292/2022/65 dated April 2022.
As per the provisions stated in sections 7 and 9 of the Act, if the Authority is satisfied that the registration has been secured by the real estate agent through misrepresentation or fraud, it may revoke the registration or suspend the same.
“No one is above the law. Three stakeholders of Rera — promoter, allottee and agent — are duty bound to follow the mandate placed in the Act,” said the Authority, adding the Act has to be followed in letter and spirit.
- To read more: Click Here
- RERA Act Must For All House Building Co-Op. Societies: Joint Secretary
E. Shivarudrappa, Joint Secretary of Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), has said, ‘Following the pending hearing in the High Court, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act — RERA Act — is applicable to all the House Building Cooperative Societies in the State.’
Shivarudrappa addressed the gathering during one-day workshop for CEOs of House Building Cooperative Societies in the district on ‘The key points of RERA Act applicable for House Building Cooperative Societies’, organised jointly by Karnataka State Co-operative Federation LTd., District Cooperative Federation and Cooperation Department, at a private hotel here on Mar. 21.
In the year 2017, a total of 22 House Building Cooperative Societies in the State had moved High Court. Likewise, across the country, 25 House Building Cooperative Societies including Real Estate promoters and companies had moved High Court in their respective States, challenging the applicability of RERA Act. Later, Supreme Court amalgamated all the cases and directed Mumbai High Court to conduct the hearing. The Mumbai High Court quashed all the applications, upholding RERA Act. Even if the disputes rose, provision was made to file the case at High Courts of respective States.
Following the provision, 22 House Building Cooperative Societies in the State have continued to argue the case, added Shivarudrappa.
RERA Act was implemented by Central Government in the year 2016, which is applicable to all the States of the country, except Jammu and Kashmir. In addition to this, State Government too has implemented Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development ) Act in the year 2017, said Shivarudrappa.
‘6,000 realty projects registered’
Till date, 6,000 real estate projects in the State have been registered with RERA. Besides, 23 House Building Cooperative Societies have also registered with RERA, with highest among them from Mysuru. —E. Shivarudrappa, Joint Secretary, RERA
To read more: Click Here
- HARERA revokes agent’s RERA registration obtained on forged documents
The Haryana real estate regulatory authority (HARERA), Gurugram, has revoked the RERA registration of real estate agent Vineet Kejriwal after it found that the documents submitted to the authority at the time of applying for registration were forged.
The HARERA has also marked an inquiry into the matter taking instant cognizance of the complaint in this regard.
The RERA Act 2016 mandates that to obtain RERA registration number to work as real estate agent the applicant has to produce or submit documents such as of commercial office space – self owned or rented – as address proof duly certified by the district revenue department at time of applying for the same.
In this regard agent, Vineet Kejriwal forged the documents with mala fide intention amounting to a serious offence and revocation of his registration number or certificate by the issuing authority, HARERA, Gurugram. As per the provisions stated in Sections 7 & 9 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016: if the authority is satisfied that the registration has been secured by
the real estate agent through misrepresentation or fraud the authority may revoke the registration or suspend the same.
- To read more: Click Here
- Homebuyers flag issues with Bengal RERA panel
Pan-India homebuyers’ body, the Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE), has raised concerns over formation and structure of the West Bengal housing department’s committee for implementation of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 and the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2021.
The state government had last week constituted a nine-member West Bengal State Working Committee on WBRERA. The committee includes two members from the state government’s housing department, three from the West Bengal real estate regulatory authority and four real estate developers operating in the state.
- To read more: Click Here
- UP Rera Warns Of Freezing Bank Accounts of Truant Promoters Of Lapsed Real Estate Projects
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Rera) has warned of freezing the bank accounts of promoters who were absent from the review of lapsed real estate projects on March 15, 2023, and before.
UP Rera has held many such meetings previously in order to take stock of such lapsed projects. Allegedly, seven developers – Rudraksh Developers Private Limited, Skynet Infraventures Pvt. Ltd., SNG Developers Ltd etc have been regularly absent from such meetings.
Rajesh Kumar Tyagi, Secretary of the UP RERA, has stated that the bank accounts of the promoters of projects who are regularly absent from these review meetings may now be frozen.
UP Rera is also considering prohibiting a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) for such lapsed projects. SPAs bind a buyer and seller to buy and sell products and services, respectively.
According to the real estate regulator, such promoters may also be prohibited from registering new projects.
“The project can be ordered to stop the sale as well as the purchase of units, In future, registration of new projects of such promoters may also be completely barred,“ he says. Apparently, there are several such projects whose completion date has expired that the UP Rera is now reviewing.
“It is mandatory for all real estate promoters to comply with the RERA rules otherwise there will be no delay in taking strict action as per the rules by the Authority. UP RERA is continuously taking tough decisions against promoters who are insensitive to the interests of home buyers,” the regulatory authority said. To read more: Click Here
RERA CASE LAWS
1. Jaypee Kalypso Court: How Buyers Used RERA Law To Get A Disputed Realty Project Completed In Noida Within Two Years
After years of being embroiled in litigation related to the disputed Kalypso Court, a high-rise in Noida Sector 128, the belligerent sides—its developer and buyers—recently wrapped up the project together, emerging as an example for several such conflicts across India.
The credit for its completion majorly goes to the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) for devising a one-of-its-kind model of mediation and conciliation which brought the two warring parties to the negotiation table and resolved a decade-long deadlock together in about two years.
Launched in 2008 by Jaiprakash Associates, the flagship company of conglomerate Jaypee Group, Kalypso Court had started off as a project with 15 towers. Seven were completed and handed over to the buyers before the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act was implemented in 2016. The remaining eight were left incomplete.
In Kalypso Court’s case, out of the 274 buyers, 152 took matters into their own hands and came forward to form an association called the Progressive Welfare Society.
However, they had neither the expertise to hire contractors to get the incomplete work done nor the finances to pay the contractors. The total cost to complete the remaining work stood tall at Rs 134.15 crore and the amount that was due to the 274 buyers was Rs 90.9 crore. The unsold 30 units could have fetched around Rs 25.06 crore. So, the project had a net negative cash flow between Rs 18 crore and Rs 19 crore.
That is when the association approached UP RERA in 2019 and acting on the case, UP RERA proceeded to devise a plan to complete the balance development work of the project under Section 8 of RERA. It chose the consensus route wherein a mechanism was drawn up in 2020 under which the project was proposed to be completed with the cooperative effort of the builder and the buyers’ association.
In the real estate circle, it has become popular as the “Kalypso model”, he says. “We are making a similar approach in about a dozen other cases,” Paliwal adds.
Venket Rao, legal advisor of the UP RERA and the head of Intygrat Law Offices, says that it was a great experience to advise the concerned parties on the entire effort.
“I think the Kalypso Court order in 2020, based on which the project got completed, has become a precedent for the rest of the projects. It was a novel effort to bring out the reconciliatory and joint effort of the builder and the association under the stewardship of the project management committee of the Authority (UP RERA),” says Rao.
He says that such actions under Section 8 of the RERA repose a lot of faith in the regulator which has been taking a lot of flak for years of the mess created by others.
- Source of the information: Click Here
2. Suresh V. Swamy Vs. L&T Limited 2018(4) ADJ 406
This is one of the landmark judgement which addressed few of the important questions related to RERA.
The facts of the case was that the complainant had paid full consideration of the flat and after the failure on the part of the promoter, it is expected that the promoter pays the interest on the payment, the agreement of sale was signed between the parties and it was agreed that delivery be made on any date in September,2017.
After this the project in question received it occupancy certificate and a revised date was confirmed as 31st December, 2018 as the new date for completion of the project. This case answered few very important issues with regard to the Act.
Can it be understood that jurisdiction under the Act is co extensive with the project registration?- Answering to this the court said that interpreting section 5(3) we can understand that provisions of the act are applicable after the gaining of occupancy certificate also. It can be understood as the permission which is granted is subject to the time period declared by Sc 4(2)(1)(c).
If for example it is accepted that after getting the occupancy certificate the registration lapses, does that mean that authority have no jurisdiction till the completion of Project?- Here the court discussed few important provisions of the Act. Firstly, it is the obligation of the concerned authority to make sure that they have to oversee the work left until everything is completed, this has been given under Section 8. Secondly, it is the duty of the promoter to do away with any structural deformity that might come up within 5 years and this must be done at a limitation of 30 days. If the promoter fails to perform this duty then he must give compensation in regard to the same. Thirdly, there are certain documents that are required to be given by the promoter within a period of 30 days and these include registered conveyance deed, plans etc. If not done within a stipulated time then he will made liable. Fourthly, Sc 33 casts a duty on Authority to oversee that the promoter performs his duties and it also casts a jurisdiction on itself for any obligation not fulfilled by the promoter. Fifthly, any complainant aggrieved by the acts of the promoter may file a complaint under section 31 and if really a cause of action arises then under 79 of the Act, the authority retains its right of jurisdiction. So this concludes the question and it has been clarified that the jurisdiction remains even after getting a occupancy certificate or even after possession is offered.
Whether the provisions of this Act can be applied to agreements signed prior to the implementation of the Act? – Answering this court went to the case of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd v/s Union of India, where they said that application of section 18 will be applicable to cases even where the agreements were signed prior to the coming of this act. The Hon’ble court suggested that the application of section 3, 6,8 and 18 have retroactive powers and they can be invoked.
If for instance there is a clause in the agreement which prohibits the authority that is it bars the authority from using its jurisdiction, can such arbitration clause exists in the first place?. To answer this question reliance was placed on HDFC Bank Ltd vs Satpal Singh Baxi where it was held that if there are certain special enactment then they cannot be overridden and such enactments are not subject to arbitral proceedings. Applying the same principals here also because the case arose out of dispute out of section 18 which provides for special powers to the RERA forum to adjudicate on the issue and such issue cannot be transferred to the Arbitral tribunal.
Whether Section 18 of RERA is mandatory or optional?. So once the matter comes for consideration the allottee has two option either he can stay and until the completion of the project and get interest for the amount of consideration he paid for the space or he can ask for repayment of his amount.
The word used in section 18 is ‘shall’ which makes it a mandatory provision and it casts an obligation to pay on the promoter to pay in case of default on his part.
If for example the promoter resorts to changing the date of project, would he still be expected to pay interest?. The court answered this in an affirmative way, it said that though it’s a discretion of the promoter to change the date of completion but this does not in any way mean that this mean re writing of contract. Once the date of delivery is fixed it cannot be changed and if the promoter fails to complete that obligation he shall be required to pay.
Vishal Arya vs. Unitech Limited. First Appeal No. 617 of 2013.
The case here involves the concept of ‘force majeure’. Force Majeure refers to happening of an uncertain event which makes it difficult or impossible for the parties to perform their contractual obligation.
Here in this case the issue was that the complainant had already paid the entire amount of consideration due for possession of flat and a fixed date of delivery was given to him, after this there was delay on the part of the promoter in giving the delivery of the flat.
However the construction work has not even started so thereby the complainant approached the forum that either be delivery be given to him or the amount he paid must be refunded along with interest for all these months.
Unitech argued that they delay was caused due to unforeseen circumstances and that it is attributed to force majeure so it’s beyond his control hence the question of compensation does not comes up.
The forum rejected this argument and said that Unitech is unnecessary benefits of the clause, there are certain requirements that are needed to be fulfilled before force majeure clause can be invoked and the present case is not one of those hence they are required to refund the entire amount along with interest and also an amount towards the mental distress that they gave.
Compliances under RERA
- All real estate developers in Maharashtra are required to register their projects with Maha-RERA. The registration process involves submitting certain documents and details about the project, such as the layout plan, specification of materials, and the status of land titles.
- RERA provides a mechanism for homebuyers to seek compensation for any delays or defects in the construction of their units. If the developer fails to rectify the defects within a reasonable time, the homebuyer can seek compensation from the developer.
- If the developer cannot complete the project, RERA provides a mechanism for homebuyers to seek a refund of their investments.
- Every promoter shall make an application to the authority for registration of real estate project. The projects that are ongoing on the date of commencement of this act and for which completion certificate have not been issued have to get registered with RERA. If real estate project fails to register a property, it will attract penalty.
- As per RERA regulation, the builder or developer is required to take all the necessary approvals and insurance, as required by State laws.
Interpretation Section
- Section 8: Obligation of Authority consequent upon lapse of or on revocation of registration.
What is the Obligation of Authority consequent upon lapse of or on revocation of registration under section 8 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act, 2016). Obligation of Authority consequent upon lapse of or on revocation of registration is defined under Section 8 of the Act. Provisions under Section 8 are:
- Upon lapse of the registration or on revocation of the registration under this Act, the Authority, may consult the appropriate Government to take such action as it may deem fit including the carrying out of the remaining development works by competent authority or by the association of allottees or in any other manner, as may be determined by the Authority:
- Provided that no direction, decision or order of the Authority under this section shall take effect until the expiry of the period of appeal provided under the provisions of this Act:
- Provided further that in case of revocation of registration of a project under this Act, the association of allottees shall have the first right of refusal for carrying out of the remaining development works.
RERA – Corporate Dose
| Sl. | Corporate Update | Link |
| 1 | Maharashtra RERA issues 19,539 show cause notices to realtors Under Section 11 of RERA Act, it is mandatory to upload fresh details by concerned registered project developers every three months. MahaRERA found that these developers failed to update information. Saying in a statement that the decision has been taken in the larger interest of the common man and the real-estate sector, the state government has decided to suspend the order issued on February 4 and implement the same from April 15. | Click Here |
| 2 | RERA and NCDRC Are Finally Coming to the Aid of Hapless Home-buyers Six years after the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) came into existence, a series of decisions is finally working in favour of home-owners. What is interesting, though, is that many positive orders have come from consumer courts rather than the realty regulator. But regulatory action from state regulators has also begun to gather momentum, especially after the pile up of adjudication cases has turned unmanageable because developers have been flouting the stringent safeguards and disclosure rules of RERA with impunity. | Click Here |
| 3 | MahaRERA initiate action against eight more in Pune for advertising unregistered projects The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has once again initiated suo motu action against 25 projects across the state that have been advertised without registration. Notices have been issued to the developers, said officials on Thursday. Pune has the second highest number of violations in this regard. In the latest batch, most getting notices are from Mumbai (16), followed by Pune (8) and Nashik (7); these are followed by Aurangabad (5) and Nagpur (3). | Click Here |
| 4 | Homebuyers concerned over no representation in West Bengal RERA implementation committee. The state government had last week constituted a nine-member West Bengal State Working Committee on WBRERA. The committee includes two members from the state government’s housing department, three from the West Bengal real estate regulatory authority and four real estate developers operating in the state. | Click Here |
| 5 | Bombay HC restrains Avarsekar Realty from selling unsold flats across projects Bombay high court recently restrained a builder, Avarsekar Realty Pvt Ltd, from selling any of its unsold flats as on date in a proposed plush 42-storey highrise at Mahim and its other projects till further orders. The court passed the interim order and adjourned to March 27 a civil contempt plea filed by an advocate and his wife who had booked a flat in Shrishti Sea View in Mahim in January 2012. | Click Here |
- Disclaimer:
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Every effort has been made to keep the information cited in this article error-free. Suggestions and feedback to improve the task are welcome. The article and opinions therein are based on my understanding of the law and provisions prevailing as on date. The contents of this article are for information purposes only and does not constitute an advice or a legal opinion and are personal views of the author. The opinion may vary according to one’s interpretation of the law. It should not be relied upon as the sole basis for any decision which may affect you or your business.