Supreme Court decision on the delay possession:
Delay in the delivery of flat possession by the builder is an extreme and habitual problem faced by the buyers in India. Delay in the delivery of possession is when the builder does not transfer the property to the buyer within the specified time period (even after the extension period).
A property buyer, who invests his hard-earned money in buying a home and does not get its possession on time, not only leaves to get a roof over his/her head but also ends up losing money, in the form of EMIs on the home loan and paying for rented accommodation.
As a person who has paid money to a developer or builder who has then not delivered the property, you have the right to a solution to your problem. Under a new act passed by the government known as the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, you have the right to file a grievance before a special body establishes for real estate projects known as the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). You can also reach consumer courts or file criminal complaints. In certain conditions, you can also start an ‘arbitration’ action or file a complaint before the Competition Commission of India.
Recently, the Supreme Court has assisted orders of a state consumer commission and the national commission to refund payment with interest to a homebuyer for over 7 years’ delay in offering possession of the flat he had booked with a Kolkata-based builder. In its judgment, the Honorable Supreme Court ordered the developer to refund the buyer.
As per the Supreme Court judgment, a buyer can’t be asked to wait endlessly for possession of his house. A period of 7 years is ahead of what is reasonable. Therefore, it would have been considered unfair to non-suit the buyer only on the basis of the first request in the relief asked before the state consumer disputes redressal commission.
A builder is also a service provider, the process of filing a consumer court complaint against them is the same as with other service providers.
Hope, this judgment will set firm arbitrary orders being passed by RERA authorities refusing refunds on their own even though RERA terms there for refunds.
