BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO. : CC006000000196770

1. CHANDRA MOHAN

2. NAINA CHANDRA MOHAN …COMPLAINANTS
Vs

1. NEELKAMAL REALTORS TOWER PRIVATE LIMITED

2. INDO GLOBAL SOFT SOLUTIONS
AND TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD …RESPONDENTS


MahaRERA Project registration No. P51900006299


INTERIM ORDER


(Date of hearing- 07.04.2025)
(Date of Order -30.05.2025)

Adv. Hita Chandarana for Complainants
None for Respondent No. 1 & 2
Adv. Abhijeet Mangade for Respondent No. 3

1. The Complainants have filed an amendment application to amend the facts and
prayer from the original complaint.

2. It is the contention of the Complainants that the Complainants has filed the present
complaint for the refund of the amount along with interest. Godrej Residency

Private Limited has been added as Respondent No. 3 in the present complaint by
order dated 25.07.2024 duly dictated in Roznama.

3. On account of Respondent No.3 now having taken over the Project, and its
representation to complete the Project by 31 December 2028, the Complainants do
not wish to withdraw from the Project and seek return of the monies (as originally
sought for in the Complaint). However, as per section 18 of the Act if the allottee
does not intend to withdraw from the project, he is entitled to interest for every
month of the delay, till handing over of the possession.

4. Accordingly, the Complainants, now not intending to withdraw from the Project,
are entitled to interest for every month of the delay, till possession of the flat is
handed over by the Respondents.

5. Further, it is the contention of the Complainants the Respondents have deliberately
failed to insert a possession date for handover of the Flat and have moreover
mentioned the amount paid by the Complainants as an ‘Interest Free Deposit’ in the
Request for Allotment Letter dated 15 June 2010 (“RFA”), thereby compelling the
allottees including the Complainants to execute a one-sided letter, and leaving no
bargaining power to the allottees. This was followed by another one-sided letter
being an amendment to the RFA dated 27 January 2018 whereby the promoters
unilaterally amended the building and layout plans and reduced the area of the Flat
(by providing no area for decks and utility).

6. Further, the Supreme Court in a catena of judgements and more particularly in the
case of Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited v. Abhishek Khanna & Ors 2021 (3)
SCC 241 has laid down that the developers cannot compel apartment buyers to be
bound by such one-sided contractual terms and that incorporation such of one-
sided and unreasonable clauses in the sale agreement constitutes unfair trade
practice under the Consumer Protection Act. In the case of Fortune Infrastructure
and Anr. v. Trevor D’ Lima & Ors (2018) 5 SCC 442, the Supreme Court has held
that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat, and
when possession date is not stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to
be taken into consideration. The Apex Court in the particular case held that a time
period of 3 years is a reasonable time to grant possession. Accordingly, given the
decisions of the Apex Court, the Respondents ought to pay interest for every month
of the delay, from 16 June 2013 (being 3 years from the date of the RFA).

7. The Respondent No. 3 has filed the reply to the amendment application filed by the
Complainants and has opposed the same.

8. It is the contentions of the Respondent No. 3 that the Complainants additionally
have failed to substantiate the rationale underlying the damaged/ compensation
sought for in the present complaint and claiming flat from Respondent No.3 at this
belated stage after already amending complaint previously when all the payments
were made to the Respondent No. 1 as interest free deposit.

9. It is mentioned that the present application for amendment at 2nd instance deserves
to be dismissed at threshold as the Complainants have misrepresented the actual
facts in order to harass the Respondent No. 3, who being ready and willing to
refund the interest free deposit amount paid by the Complainants to the
Respondent No. 1.

10. The Complainants have mentioned the amendments in the schedule – A of this
amendment application which has been perused by this Authority.

11. I have gone through the original complaint. It is seen that the Complainants in the
original complaint claimed that the respondent may be directed to refund the
amount paid by the Complainants, along with interest for delayed possession. Now
the Complainants, through this amendment application, wants to amend the prayer
that the Complainants seeking relief to continue in the project, humbly prays to seek
possession with interest for every month delay as per MahaRERA provisions.

12. Considering the nature of the amendment, in my considered opinion, due to the
proposed amendment, the nature of the complaint is not going to be changed.
Moreover, in order to adjudicate the matter effectively and to avoid multiplication
of the litigations, it is just and necessary to allow the Complainants to amend the
complaint and to allow the Complainants to make of consequential amendments to
the body of the complaint. Hence, in my opinion amendment application deserves
to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following order


ORDER

1. The amendment application is allowed.

2. The Complainants are permitted to amend the complaint within four corners
of the scheduled- A attached to the amendment application.

3. The Complainants are directed to upload the amended complaint copy on
the MahaRERA website within 15 days.


Date: 30.05.2025


Ravindra Deshpande
Member-2, MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.06.03
17:31:49 +05'30'