Sunday, July 14, 2024

Karnataka RERA Orders Developer to Register Pre-Act Completion Project

In a recent development, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) has directed Mantri Developers Pvt Ltd to register its residential project, Mantri DKS Pinnacle, located in Bengaluru, as an ongoing project. This directive comes in response to a complaint filed by a homebuyer who sought compensation for project delays, and it has raised important questions about the application of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, commonly known as RERA, in cases where completion certificates were obtained before the act came into force in 2017.

The Background of the Case

The genesis of this case can be traced back to Onkarnath Jaiswal, a homebuyer who signed a construction agreement with Mantri Developers in 2010 for the Mantri DKS Pinnacle project. The project was originally slated for completion in 2014. However, as time passed, it became evident that the project was experiencing significant delays, leading Jaiswal to file a complaint with the KRERA in 2019. He later amended his complaint to not only seek compensation for the project delays but also to demand the registration of the project as ongoing under the KRERA.

Mantri Developers, on the other hand, argued before the KRERA that they had obtained the completion certificate just one month before the RERA Act was enacted in May 2017. Therefore, they contended, there was no requirement for RERA registration.

However, the KRERA found this argument unconvincing. One of the critical points of contention was the completion certificate itself, which did not specify the project’s name, only mentioning the survey number and location. The authority further noted that fire clearances and occupancy certificates for the project were obtained in September 2017 and March 2019, respectively, well after the KRERA came into force.

According to the KRERA’s order, these documents strongly indicated that the project qualified as an ongoing one, requiring registration under the authority’s jurisdiction. It’s worth noting that this case highlights the need for precise documentation and compliance with the regulatory requirements, as even small discrepancies can have significant legal implications.

The KRERA’s Decision

In addition to directing the registration of the project, the KRERA mandated that Mantri Developers pay a significant compensation amount of Rs 1.32 crore to Jaiswal as delayed interest. This compensation covered the period from March 2014, when the delays started, up to the date of possession with an occupancy certificate.

The decision also required the developer to execute the sale deed within one month of the order date. This order serves as a powerful reminder to developers about the importance of adhering to timelines and regulatory requirements, and it emphasizes the need for effective dispute resolution mechanisms within the real estate sector.

About Mantri DKS Pinnacle

Mantri DKS Pinnacle, the focal point of this legal dispute, is a prominent residential skyscraper located in Hulimavu, Bengaluru. This luxury residential complex stands out with its 46 floors and offers a range of opulent 3/4 BHK apartments, with prices starting from Rs 2.5 crore. Local real estate brokers have often highlighted this project for its luxurious offerings and its status as one of South India’s tallest residential skyscrapers.

Understanding the RERA Act

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, popularly known as RERA, was enacted by the Indian government to regulate the real estate sector and protect the interests of homebuyers. The act was implemented to bring transparency and accountability to the real estate industry, which had often been marred by delays, disputes, and unfulfilled promises.

One of the key provisions of RERA is the requirement for developers to register their projects with the respective state’s RERA authority. This registration is mandatory for any project that is ongoing or is being launched, and it comes with strict disclosure norms regarding project details, financial information, and timelines. Developers are also required to deposit a significant percentage of the project cost in a separate escrow account, ensuring that funds are utilized for the project’s completion.

RERA empowers homebuyers by providing them with access to essential project information, including project status, approved plans, and details about the developer. It also establishes a framework for addressing disputes and delays, as evident in the case of Mantri DKS Pinnacle.

The Developer’s Perspective

Mantri Developers, while contending with the KRERA’s directive, cited several reasons for the project’s delays. These reasons included difficulties related to the scarcity of raw materials, unavailability of labor, and clearance delays from competent authorities. Additionally, they claimed that Jaiswal’s complaint was unsustainable as it was filed after the developer sent a termination letter to the homebuyer in November 2021.

However, the KRERA had a different view on these matters. It held that none of the reasons provided by the developer had any legal validity to justify the project’s delay. Furthermore, the authority pointed out that the developer’s termination letter was sent in 2021, which was well after the initial complaint was filed in 2019. The KRERA’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal and procedural requirements and not attempting to terminate contracts while disputes are pending.

Implications and Questions

The case of Mantri DKS Pinnacle raises essential questions regarding the application of RERA in situations where completion certificates were obtained before the act’s implementation. While developers may argue that their projects are exempt from RERA requirements due to these certificates, the KRERA’s decision shows that other factors, such as the project’s name omission on the certificate and the subsequent acquisition of fire and occupancy clearances, are equally significant.

Furthermore, the case emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability in the real estate sector. Homebuyers should be provided with accurate and timely information to make informed decisions, while developers must adhere to regulatory requirements to ensure project delivery as promised.

The case also serves as a reminder of the importance of effective dispute resolution mechanisms within the real estate sector. Disputes between homebuyers and developers can lead to significant delays and financial burdens, making it crucial to have a robust regulatory framework in place to address such issues promptly and fairly.

Related Articles

Latest Articles