<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>In a recent order, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a complaint where the buyer, after taking possession of the flat, alleged that the developer had not provided amenities as per the agreement. If a homebuyer has already taken possession of a flat and the concerned builder has failed to provide amenities as mentioned in the agreement, the buyer cannot hold the builder responsible, as per the rules. The complainant, Harish Bhulchandani, registered a complaint with MahaRERA against Satra Properties for not providing all the amenities as per the agreement of his flat in Borivli West. A registered agreement dated December 22, 2014, for sale of the apartment was executed between the wife of the complainant, Rachana Harish Bulchandani, and the developer. Bulchandani stated that he took possession of the flat in April 2017, and argued that the developer had not provided the amenities that were decided in the agreement. He then urged the authority to direct the developer to provide the said facilities. The developer, however, claimed that the buyer did not complain while taking possession of the flat, and had not raised any objection then. He further argued that the complainant had taken possession of the flat prior to RERA coming into force, and hence, the present case does not fall under the jurisdiction of MahaRERA. MahaRERA agreed to the developer’s arguments and dismissed the complaint.Dr Sanjay Chaturvedi, a RERA expert and executive editor, Accommodation Times, said that the dismissal of the complaint is not in favour of homebuyers. “Providing amenities is like providing services to the homebuyers, and this should be protected by MahaRERA. Natural justice is not done here,” he said.About MahaRERAMahaRERA came into force on May 1, 2017 and since then More tha. 13,000 developers have registered their projects with the authority. Every developer who has a project ongoing and has created a third party needs to register their project.


MahaRERA dismisses aggrieved buyer’s plaint