Recently I had a chance to visit MahaRERA Pune office with my friend, in connection with a complaint filed by my friend against Lavasa Corporation Ltd. for not completing the project in time as per the registered agreement. From the discussions held with the other complainants present there, following came to my knowledge.
First of all let’s look at the preamble of the RERA Act.
PREAMBLE
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
"An Act to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment of building, as the case may be, or sale of real estate project, in an efficient and transparent manner and to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate sector and to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal and also to establish the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions,directions or orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the adjudicating officer and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."
The main emphasis in the preamble of the Act. is to protect the interest of consumer in the real estate sector.
Under section 2(d) of the Act,
allottee has been defined as under:-
# 2(d) allottee" in real estate project, means the person to whom a plot, apartment or buildings, as the case may be, has been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter, and includes the person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise but does not include a person to whom such plot, apartment or buildings, as the case may be, is given on rent;"
In the above definition of the allottee, three terms in respect of holding a property have been mentioned. which are a) Freehold b) Leasehold c) Given on rent.
Now comes the crux of the problem. Under the FAQ’s published by MahaRERA, the nature of holdings of the property i.e. b) leasehold and c) given on rent, have been merged and treated as given on rent as under.
# FAQ - 8. Does the term ‘allottee’ include secondary sales?
Ans: As per section 2(d) an allottee includes a person who acquires the said ‘apartment / plot’ through transfer or sale, but does not include a person to whom such plot, apartment is given on rent. The Act doesn’t include rental projects, lease / leave and License deals.
Thus in effect MahaRERA has amended the Act of the Parliament in a very ingenious way by publishing FAQ’s on the website of MahaRERA.
Taking support of the MahaRERA FAQ;s Mumbai bench of MahaRERA passed the following ruling on 1st February,2018.
# 11…………………....Section 31 of the Act confers .jurisdiction on the Authority or Adjudicating officer only when there is violation or contravention of the provisions of RERA or the rules and regulations made thereunder. After going through these provisions, I find that RERA is not applicable to the transactions of lease. Since the complainants have agreed to take apartments from respondents on lease, MahaRERA does not get any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon their complaints. Hence they are to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
# 12. MahaRERA has very limited jurisdiction when it makes the enquiry in the complaints. Intention of the parties is the important aspect while ascertaining the nature of the documents. The parties are educated. They have executed the agreements and it is necessary to give face value to the contents of agreements and therefore, I hold that the agreements are not for sale of the flats but they are for lease. If the complainants still feel that it is necessary to vindicate their rights they are at liberty to approach the proper forum to get it declared after full-fledged trial that the agreements though are styled as 'agreements for lease', are in fact, 'agreements for sale'. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
The complaints are dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Mumbai. - Sd -
Date: 01.02.2018. (B.D.Kapadnis)
Member & Adjudicating Officer
MahaRERA, Mumbai.
MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL under MahaRERA Act had vide order dated 15th March, 2018 ruled that MahaRERA has jurisdiction over the leased properties as well. Excerpts of the order are as under.
Excerpts…..
# 1) Heard finally.
# 2) The appellant has questioned legality and correctness ot order dt. 15.1.2018 recorded by Ld. Member and Adj. Officer, MahaRERA Authority, whereby the complaint was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The ld. Member formulated a question "Whether lessee can file a complaint under The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) against a lessor is the most important issue involved in this complaint.
.
. ORDER
# 1) Appeal is partly allowed.
# 2) It is held that the Adjudicating Member of MahaRERA has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the Appellant on its merits.
# 3) Both the ld. Advocates have urged that the matter be heard by Adjudicating Member at Mumbai only.
# 4) That matter is remanded to the Ld. Adjudicating Member, Mumbai to decide the complaint on Its own merits after affording opportunities to both Sides,
# 5) No expression or opinion is indicated about the entitlement of the complainant for relief in terms of Sec. 18 or otherwise. The parties to appear before the Authority (Adjudicating Member) presiding over at Mumbai on 27"'March 2018.
# 6) No costs.
Dictated and pronounced in open Court today.. - Sd -
(K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.)
President,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Place: Mumbai Mumbai
Dated: 15th March, 2018 & 1/c. Maharashtra Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal, (MahaRERA),
Mumbai
Now Lavasa Corporation Ltd has filed second appeal in Honorable High Court at Mumbai & seeking adjournments in all other complaints cases against Lavasa Corporation Ltd. before MahaRERA, thus frustrating the efforts of allottees to seek relief under the Act. Here it is worth noting that Lavasa Corporation Ltd, as a matter of policy sells the residential units on 999 years Lease, with annual lease rental of Rs.1.00 per year, thus effectively blocking all complaints against them (Lavasa Corporation Ltd.)
As of now, none of the Authority, has clearly defined the difference between a leasehold and holding on rent basis, specifically when
leasehold basis and on rent has been separately mentioned in the definition of the allottee under section 2(d) of the Act as mentioned supra above.
Let's again look section 2(d) & FAQ-8, which reads as under:-
FAQ - 8. Does the term ‘allottee’ include secondary sales?
Ans: As per section 2(d) an allottee includes a person who acquires the said ‘apartment / plot’ through transfer or sale, but does not include a person to whom such plot, apartment is given on rent. The Act doesn’t include rental projects, lease / leave and License deals.
# Section 2(d)
"allottee" in real estate project, means the person to whom a plot, apartment or buildings, as the case may be, has been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter, and includes the person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise but does not include a person to whom such plot, apartment or buildings, as the case may be, is given on rent;"
Thus section 2(d) goes on defining the person who subsequently acquires (out of secondary sale by the allottee) as under
"................ and includes the person who subsequently acquires (from allottee out of secondary sales) the said allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise (inheritance / gift ) , but does not include a person (out of secondary sale by the allottee) to whom such plot, apartment or buildings, as the case may be, is given on rent ( by the allottee).
In the FAQ's, though it talks about the secondary sale ( by the allottee), but goes on defining the allottee.
As per section 2(d) the primary allotment to the allottee by the builder, sale on leasehold basis is clearly covered.
Section 2(d)...."allottee" in real estate project, means the person to whom a plot, apartment or buildings, as the case may be, has been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter,"
In both the judgements quoted above, neither Honorable Member MahaRERA, nor RERA Tribunal had clarified on the above issue.
In layman’s terms holding my be treated on leasehold basis when
a)..Parties has named the agreement as lease deed / agreement to lease, which indicates / defines the intentions of the parties to the agreement.
b)..Stamp duty has been paid as lease deed. In Maharashtra stamp duty on long term lease deed is 4% (equivalent to the conveyance deed) of the lease premium.
c)..Lease premium paid by the lessee is not refundable.
And holding on rental basis be treated when
a)..Parties has named the agreement as rent deed, which indicates / defines the intentions of the parties to the agreement.
b)..Stamp duty has been paid as rent deed. In Maharashtra stamp duty on rent deed is 0.25% of the rent for the entire rental period + refundable deposit.
c)..Deposit taken by the owner is refundable at the time of vacation of the premises after the expiry of the rental period.
Present Position. As most of the major builders are selling residential units on leasehold basis, nearly more than 50% of the home buyers in Maharashtra, are effectively pushed out of the purview of MahaRERA.
Another Important issue When a allottee wants to file a complaint, against the builder / promoter of the project, online on the website of MahaRERA , he ( complainant / allottee) is asked to enter the project registration no. to proceed with filing of the details of the complaint. In case the complainant / allottee does not know the project registration no or the builder / promoter has not registered the project, the allottee is prevented from filing the complaint for want of project registration no. Thus benifitting the builder / promoter for not registration of the project. This is not the case in other states.
As per RERA Act. a consumer can also file complaints for structural deficiencies of the property up-to 5 years from the date of possession & for defects in the title of the property, for which there is no limitation of the time period. The registration of the project is valid up-to the date of issue of completion certificate. Thus in the present format of filing of complaint online, complainants falling under these categories will be denied the right to file complaint.
With my very limited exposure to the Act and rudimentary legal knowledge, I have tried to put the above two issues in the public domain, in order to increase the awareness in general public. I request experts in this field to contribute in the effort ,which will go a long way to increase the transparency in the field & confidence of the consumer which will help in creating vibrant real estate market.
As per the preamble of the Act MahaRERA is mandated to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate sector.
I request MahaRERA to provide draft template of agreement of sale and standardise letter of allotment to be issued by the builder. Furthur as a regulatory authority MahaRERA may recommend suitable changes in the Act to protect the interests of the consumer, specifically on the issue of leasehold / holding on rental basis and / or adding of definition of lease under section 2 of the Act
I request the intervention of State Govt. & Union Ministry of Law to take suitable remedial measures and / or to suitably amend the law, if required.
5th August.2018
In a welcome judgement / order dated July 31, the Mumbai High Court
division bench of Justice VM Deshpande and Justice RM Borde instructed MahaRERA to make "necessary modifications" in its software — in order to entertain complaints of unregistered projects — within a period of 15 days.