Case Title: IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD. v. ANIL PATNI
According to the Supreme Court, the time frame for allotting a flat to a homebuyer should be calculated starting from the date of the buyer agreement rather than from the date the project was registered under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act (RERA Act).
The verdict in the present case was given by a division bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran.
The Builder Buyer Agreement in this instance was signed and after some time the proposal was submitted for registration with RERA. According to the contract, the unit's possession had to be transferred within 42 months of the contract's signing. The buyers filed a complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the Consumer Protection Act when the project was not completed within the agreed deadline. The NCDRC accepted the case and mandated that the builder must make restitution.
The builder filed a case with the Supreme Court challenging the NCDRC ruling. One of the arguments made in the appeal was that the project could not be considered to be delayed because the RERA registration was valid even after the registration.
The Supreme Court rejected this claim by pointing out that the allotment period had ended well before the RERA registration.
"Merely because the registration under the RERA Act is valid does not mean that the entitlement of the concerned allottees to maintain an action stands deferred. It is relevant to note that even for the purposes of Section 18(of RERA), the period has to be reckoned in terms of the agreement and not the registration", the Court observed.
Referring to Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and another vs. Union of India and another and Bharat Bank Ltd. V. Employees and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corpn, the Supreme Court said that the rights of the Complainants must be evaluated in light of the conditions of the Builder Buyer Agreements. The court also dismissed the builder's further contention that the Consumer Protection Act's remedies were restricted by RERA.