In a significant ruling, the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) court in Gurugram has imposed a penalty of over ₹6 lakh on real estate developer Vatika Limited for violating provisions outlined in the Builder Buyer Agreement, as confirmed by an official on Tuesday.
The order, issued by Judge SK Arora, marks a substantial relief for the five complainants involved, according to the official.
Citing the violation of Section 13 of the Real Estate Act of 2016, the court ordered Vatika Limited to pay a penalty of ₹1 lakh in each complaint. Furthermore, the developer was directed to execute registered buyer agreements within 30 days, failing which penal action under Section 63 would be invoked, as per the model agreement provided in the Real Estate Regulation and Development Rules 2017.
Section 13 of the Real Estate Act prohibits developers from accepting more than 10% of the apartment or plot cost as advance payment or application fee.
The complainants, who are also allottees, had approached the RERA Court in October 2022 after failing to obtain relief from Vatika Limited. They had booked commercial units in the Vatika India Next project in 2018, paying the full consideration to the promoter without the execution of the BBA.
Subsequently, Vatika allegedly transferred their units to a different project, Vatika One in Sector 16 of Gurugram, without their consent, and reduced the unit sizes from the original 1000 sq ft to 500 sq ft.
The court noted that Vatika Limited had taken 100% of the consideration without executing the BBA, emphasizing the violation.
Additionally, the court imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 to be paid to each complainant within 30 days for non-compliance with the Authority’s directions in its order dated February 23.
Furthermore, Vatika Limited was directed to pay interest for each month of delay from the due date of possession until now at the prescribed rate.
In response to the court order, a spokesperson for Vatika Ltd stated that the company would appeal the decision, citing that all facts of the case and the company’s representations were not adequately considered.