Mumbai Real Estate Row: MahaRERA Dismisses Homebuyers’ Delay Claims Against Nidhi Towers Promoter For Lack Of Evidence
· Free Press Journal
Mumbai, Feb 04: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed two complaints filed by homebuyers Kamal Khandelwal and Varun & Sarita Khandelwal against promoter Rajan Kumar Manchanda of the project Nidhi Towers, citing lack of supporting evidence.
Claims of delayed possession and excess payment
The complainants had sought 12% annual interest for delayed possession of flats 201 and 601, alleging that the promised possession date of July 31, 2021, was not honoured and that possession was ultimately handed over only on September 5, 2024. One of the buyers also claimed an excess payment of Rs 68.75 lakh following a revised pricing arrangement.
Promoter cites disputes and pandemic delays
The promoter, who was represented by Adv Anil Dsouza, Secretary of the Bar Association of MahaRERA, argued that delays were caused by disputes with an earlier developer that went to arbitration, along with pandemic-related disruptions.
He also contended that the buyers had taken fit-out possession earlier and that parallel civil proceedings before the Bombay High Court had been settled. The project received its Occupancy Certificate on August 7, 2024, prior to formal possession.
Authority finds lack of documentary proof
“Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent, vide letter dated 10.10.2021, offered the complainants a reduction of 10% on the total consideration of Rs 13,25,00,000 as mentioned in the agreement for sale dated 18.04.2018, thereby revising the consideration to Rs 11.90 crore. However, it is noted that the complainants have not placed on record any supporting material, including bank statements, cheques or payment receipts, to prove the alleged excess payment made towards the revised total consideration of Rs 11.90 crore. In the absence of such evidence, the said contention of the complainants remains unsubstantiated and supports the case of the developer,” the authority observed.
High Court settlement not substantiated
Meanwhile, holding that the institution of a suit before the Bombay High Court had not been denied by the complainants, the authority stated, “While the developer avers that the said suit was amicably settled, no document, including consent terms or settlement agreement, has been placed on record by either party to substantiate the terms or nature of such settlement. The Authority is of the opinion that, on the basis of the documents placed on record, it is difficult to conclusively determine the issues raised in the subject complaints. Also, the absence of material evidence has created evidentiary gaps which cannot be bridged by assumptions or conjecture. Consequently, the Authority is constrained in adjudicating upon the merits of the captioned complaints on the basis of the record,” the order copy read.
Also Watch:
MahaRERA Allows Interest For Delayed Possession In Thane’s Sheth Zuri Project, Payment Linked To Full OCComplaints held not maintainable
The authority noted that key claims — including the alleged excess payment and the nature of the High Court settlement — were not backed by documentary proof on record. Holding that evidentiary gaps made it impossible to conclusively adjudicate the dispute, it ruled that the complaints were not maintainable.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/