Recently the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal remanded a case to Chairman, MahaRERA for deciding the complaints afresh as the earlier order had inadequate reasons.
In the original case, eight home buyers had complained to MahaRERA against Surti Developers Private Limited. The complainants had stated that they purchased apartments in Universal Paradise at Santacruz. They further alleged that the developer, sometime in February 2017, unilaterally cancelled the agreements. The complainants prayed that the authority declares the agreements for sale as valid, legal, subsisting and binding on the developer, the termination notice issued by the developer as illegal and bad in law and quash and set aside the said termination.
The developer while arguing stated that, the cancellations were executed in accordance with the then existing law. He also submitted that the since the agreements/allotments were cancelled prior to the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 coming into force, there was no cause of action subsisting on the date when the said Act came into force.
Earlier MahaRERA chairperson had concluded that cancellation of agreements for sale was before RERA came into being however as complainants money was with the developer they had jurisdiction over the case.
In their appeal, the complainants reiterated their grievances made in the complaints. They submitted that authority failed to exercise powers under section 11(5) of the act to arrive at the conclusion that agreements for sale are valid, legal subsisting and binding on the developer.
In the order, the Appellate Tribunal noted, "It appears that thought the issue of jurisdiction is answered in favour of complainants, it takes them nowhere as there is no whisper in the entire order for keeping the relief untouched and travelling beyond by issuing a direction to the parties to execute agreements."
In its order the appellate tribunal also states that it is conscious of the fact that remand of the matter is the last resort and appellate tribunal as far as possible would decide the issues on merits instead of relegating the parties to the authority. Finally, it remanded the matter to the Chairman, MahaRERA for deciding the complaints afresh on merits.
The complainants reiterated that authority failed to exercise powers under section 11(5) of the act to arrive at the conclusion that agreements for sale are valid, legal subsisting and binding on the developer
Copyright © 2019 - All Right Reserved