By Dr. Sanjay Chaturvedi LLB, Ph.D.
Smt. Vimla Kapoor V/s M/s. Ekta Supreme Corporation (CC006000000023132) Order dated: 10th April 2018
The complainant who is members of o redevelopment society known as “Corner View CHS Ltd” has filed this complaint in the Maha RERA registered project bearing No. P51800000908 at Bandra (West), Mumbai seeking following directions to the respondent.
To give the complainant an additional 41% carpet area over and above the original carpet area of 824 sq.ft. as the rightful and legitimate FSI of the complainant’s property by virtue of the fungible FSI given by Competent Authority i.e. MCGM.
To enter into an agreement for sole for the said premises for the extra carpet area as decided in development agreement / Supplement Development agreement.
To pay the hardship cost/corpus fund to the complainant as given to other commercial uusers/allotteeson the ground floor of the project and to adjudicate for the losses incurred and interest on the amount accrued as per the Act.
This matter was finally heard today. The complainant argued that she is the rightful owner of the apartment in Corner View CHS Ltd. since 1979 which is being redeveloped by the respondent. The latter has denied possession of the apartment agreed to be transferred to her in redeveloped building after forcefully evacuating her from her original premises under section 354 of the BMC Act. She has not given consent for the redevelopment and was forced to accept respondent’s conditions on which he had entered into the agreement with her on 30-09-2009. He never got it registered as required under prevalent laws and in violation of section 13 of the Act. The complainant, therefore argued that she may be given possession of her shop premises under section l9 (3) of the RERA Act,2016 in the redevelopment project of the respondent, since she is occupying the same for the last 40 years.
Maha RERA Ordered: this Authority gets jurisdiction to resolve the dispute pertaining to the sole component. According to Section-3 (2)C, of RERA Act, 2016, no registration of real estate project is required for the purpose of re-development. As the complainant’s claim pertains to the redevelopment component, which is not registered with this Authority, the claim of the complainant is beyond the jurisdiction of this Authority. Complaint Dismissed.
Credits: Landmark Judgements of RERA (Book)