📖 View in Flipbook All editions
"COVID DOES NOT EXPLAIN A 2024 DEADLINE": MAHARERA REJECTS A BUILDER'S DEFENCE
"कोविडचे कारण २०२४ च्या मुदतीला लागू होत नाही" — महारेराचा निर्वाळा HPT ACCOUNTABILITY DESK | PUNE In a common order dated 4 August 2026, MahaRERA Member II Shri Ravindra Deshpande partly allowed eighteen complaints filed by homebuyers against Gagan Housing and Landmarks LLP, and directed the developer to pay statutory interest for delay in handing over possession of flats in the Gagan Klara residential project at Balewadi, Pune. The Authority also directed that flats be handed over only after the mandatory occupancy certificate has been secured. The project, registered under MahaRERA registration number P52100019739, was originally scheduled for completion by 30 March 2024, with the deadline subsequently extended to 30 March 2026. The occupancy certificate has not been uploaded on the MahaRERA portal and the project is presently listed as a lapsed project. The developer's defence attributed the delay to the Covid-19 pandemic, labour shortages, supply chain disruption and delays in obtaining statutory approvals, and asserted that compensation had already been paid to certain buyers. The Authority rejected that defence in substance. It observed that most of the agreements had been executed after the pandemic and that the promised possession dates fell in 2023 and 2024, and held that a Covid-related explanation could not justify the delay in such cases. It also noted that the developer had failed to produce evidence supporting the claim of having already compensated buyers. Limited Covid-related relief was granted only in four cases, where the agreements had been executed during 2019 and 2020. The significance of the order lies less in the amounts than in the method, and the method has consequences for every project in Maharashtra reading Page 1 of this issue. The Authority did not accept a general external event as a general excuse. It asked when the agreement was executed and when possession was promised, and it granted relief only where the timeline of the individual agreement actually overlapped the disruption relied on. Four complaints out of eighteen met that test. That is a discipline worth noting in a week in which a four-month blanket extension has been granted for a different external event. A regulatory extension of a registration timeline and an adjudication of a contractual delay claim are separate exercises conducted under separate provisions. This order is a recent illustration of how the second exercise is conducted. The second element is the bar on handover without an occupancy certificate. Possession offered without an occupancy certificate transfers the consequence of the missing certificate to the occupant — in service connections, in property tax treatment, in resale and in mortgage. The direction that flats be handed over only after the certificate is secured is directed at exactly that transfer.
React
Comments (0)