In one of the earliest decisions involving the Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA), the Bombay High Court has directed the promoter to pay 10% interest for the period when the possession was not given to the aspirants of flats.
While most of the allottees had paid 95% of the due amount, the promoter of the project had completed only 0% to 95% of the construction, and started work on few of the amenities promised like a clubhouse.
The home applicants moved the Maharashtra real estate regulatory chairman, who believed the completion certificate issued to the promoter and asked the allottees to move in. But they went to the appellate tribunal, alleging that the project had not been completed. The architect of the project gave a completion certificate but a joint inspection by the promoters and the allottees revealed that the architect’s claim was wrong. The appellate tribunal was, therefore, convinced that the project had not taken off and it ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the architect. The promoter appealed to the High Court. In its judgment, Sea Princess Realty vs Rajesh Mehta, the High Court declined to interfere in the finding of facts by the appellate tribunal. It stated that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal calling for its intervention.