MREAT Sets New Precedent: Booking Form Recognised as Agreement for Sale रियल एस्टेट कानून के तहत राहत के लिए फ्लैट बिक्री समझौता जरूरी नहीं

 मुंबई: एमआरईएटी ने हाल ही में दिए गए फैसले में महारेरा के 2020 के आदेश को खारिज कर दिया, जिसमें एक डेवलपर द्वारा फ्लैट की डिलीवरी न करने पर खरीदार को राहत देने से इनकार कर दिया गया था, यह कहते हुए कि बिक्री के लिए कोई पंजीकृत समझौता नहीं था। न्यायाधिकरण ने प्रमोटर को अंधेरी स्थित आवंटी द्वारा भुगतान की गई राशि ब्याज सहित वापस करने का निर्देश दिया।

आवंटी स्टेनली सलदान्हा, जिनका प्रतिनिधित्व अधिवक्ता अनिल डिसूजा ने किया, ने अगस्त 2013 में पनवेल में इंडियाबुल्स परियोजना में एक फ्लैट बुक किया था और 26 लाख रुपये से अधिक की राशि का भुगतान किया था। निर्माण की धीमी गति और फ्लैट का कब्ज़ा सौंपने में देरी के कारण, आवंटी ने 2019 में परियोजना से हटने की मांग की।

हालांकि, जब आवंटी ने बाहर निकलने की मांग की तो डेवलपर ने निरस्तीकरण शुल्क काटने और भुगतान की गई राशि का एक हिस्सा जब्त करने की मांग की।

एमआरईएटी ने कहा कि चेयरमैन गौतम चटर्जी द्वारा महारेरा के आदेश में यह गलत माना गया कि बिक्री के लिए पंजीकृत समझौते की अनुपस्थिति में अधिनियम की धारा 18 के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होंगे। इस मामले में, एक विस्तृत बुकिंग आवेदन फॉर्म मौजूद था, जो लगभग 26 पृष्ठों का है और बुकिंग आवेदन की सामग्री पार्टियों की सहमत स्थिति को दर्शाती है, जो बिक्री के लिए एक समझौते के समान है।

एमआरईएटी ने बताया कि समझौते का लिखित होना आवश्यक नहीं है तथा समझौते की अपेक्षित विषय-वस्तु वाला कोई अन्य दस्तावेज पर्याप्त होगा।

इसके अलावा, पार्टियों के इरादे ज़्यादा मायने रखते हैं, न कि लेन-देन के साधनों का नाम, उसने कहा। न्यायाधिकरण ने पहले माना था कि अधिनियम की धारा 18 के प्रावधानों के उद्देश्य के लिए समझौता ज्ञापन को भी वैध साधन माना जा सकता है।

एमआरईएटी के अनुसार, इस मामले में कब्जे की तारीखों को कब्जे की तारीखों से जोड़ना कानूनी रूप से उचित नहीं है। एमआरईएटी ने कहा कि प्रमोटर ने बुकिंग के समय कब्जे की तारीख और चरणवार परियोजना निर्माण की जानकारी न लिखकर अधिनियम की धारा 11 (3) के प्रावधान का उल्लंघन किया है।

एमआरईएटी ने यह भी बताया कि अधिनियम में ऐसा कोई स्पष्ट प्रावधान नहीं है, जो यह दर्शाता हो कि किसी भी पक्ष द्वारा बुकिंग रद्द करने की स्थिति में प्रमोटर को बयाना राशि या किसी निश्चित मात्रा की अन्य राशि जब्त करने का अधिकार है।

--------------

MREAT Sets New Precedent: Booking Form Recognised as Agreement for Sale

Introduction

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has recently passed a landmark judgment that significantly impacts homebuyers and real estate developers alike. It overturned a 2020 MahaRERA order and clarified that even a detailed booking application can serve as a valid agreement under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

Background of the Case

Who is the Allottee?

Stanley Saldanha, a resident of Andheri, had booked a flat in an Indiabulls project in Panvel in August 2013. Like many hopeful buyers, he dreamt of timely possession. But things didn't go as planned.

Project Details

The flat was part of a prominent Panvel-based Indiabulls real estate venture. Saldanha paid over ₹26 lakh towards this flat but faced long construction delays, leading him to seek an exit in 2019.

The Core Legal Dispute

MahaRERA’s 2020 Ruling

In 2020, MahaRERA denied Saldanha any relief, stating that Section 18 of the RERA Act—relating to the right of buyers to claim a refund with interest—would not apply as there was no registered agreement for sale.

Buyer’s Objections and Exit Attempt

Due to continued delays and unsatisfactory progress, Saldanha attempted to withdraw from the project. However, the builder decided to impose cancellation charges and forfeit a part of the amount already paid.

MREAT’s Intervention and Final Verdict

Relevance of Section 18 of RERA

MREAT categorically stated that MahaRERA had erred in its 2020 judgment. The appellate tribunal emphasized that Section 18 of the RERA Act is applicable even without a registered agreement for sale, as long as there is sufficient documentation indicating a mutual agreement.

Booking Application Form as Valid Contract

The tribunal noted that the 26-page booking application reflected detailed terms that were mutually agreed upon. It wasn’t just a casual form; it was akin to an agreement for sale. So, yes—even without formal registration, it held legal weight.

The Importance of Parties' Intentions

MREAT highlighted a fundamental legal principle—intention of the parties matters more than the title or nomenclature of a document. If both parties acted on it like a binding agreement, then it should be treated as one.

Section 11(3) Violation by Developer

The tribunal also pulled up the developer for violating Section 11(3) of RERA by not communicating a specific possession date or detailed construction milestones at the time of booking.

Cancellation Charges and Forfeiture — Not Justified

MREAT strongly objected to the developer's attempt to levy cancellation charges and forfeit money without proper legal backing. The tribunal clarified that RERA doesn’t allow blanket forfeiture of earnest or other paid amounts just because a buyer backs out due to non-possession.

Legal Precedents Set by the Tribunal

MOU or Booking Form as Substitute Agreement

This case now becomes a precedent that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or a detailed booking application may qualify as a legally binding agreement under certain sections of RERA.

Rejection of Possession-Linked with Occupation Certificate Logic

MREAT also stated that linking possession dates with occupation certificate dates is legally untenable, especially when no clear commitment was made at the time of booking.

Implications for Homebuyers and Developers

Boost for Consumer Rights

This ruling is a major win for homebuyers, especially those stuck in projects without registered sale agreements. It confirms that documentation like booking forms and payment receipts can provide legal standing.

Developers Must Maintain Transparency

Developers will now have to be more transparent and precise about delivery timelines and avoid ambiguous clauses. They also cannot rely on the absence of a formal agreement to escape their obligations.

Expert Opinions

Legal experts believe this ruling empowers consumers and compels builders to adhere more strictly to RERA norms. Advocate Anil D'Souza, who represented Saldanha, hailed the judgment as a long-awaited boost for fairness in real estate dealings.

Conclusion

The MREAT’s decision to set aside the MahaRERA order changes the game for thousands of homebuyers across Maharashtra. It redefines the value of booking forms and reinforces that justice should not hinge on technical formalities. This ruling sends a clear message—intention, transparency, and fairness are the new cornerstones of real estate jurisprudence.

---

FAQs

Q1. Can I claim a refund under RERA even without a registered agreement for sale?
Yes. As per this MREAT judgment, if you have a detailed booking form or MOU reflecting mutual agreement, you can claim a refund.

Q2. Can a builder forfeit booking amounts if I cancel due to delayed possession?
Not without legal justification. As ruled in this case, such forfeiture isn't supported by RERA unless explicitly provided in a registered agreement.

Q3. Does this ruling apply to other states or only Maharashtra?
While this ruling applies to Maharashtra, it sets a persuasive precedent and may influence similar cases in other RERA jurisdictions.

Q4. What should I do if my builder hasn’t given a possession date?
You may file a complaint under Section 11(3) of RERA. Builders are obligated to provide clear possession timelines.

Q5. Is a 26-page booking form really legally valid like an agreement?
Yes. If it includes key terms and is signed by both parties, it can be treated as an agreement for sale, as shown in this case.