The Tribunal, which issued its decision of 12.3.2018, also found that the RERA legislation was welfare legislation and that the provisions were applicable accordingly. The court, in section 18 (1) of the act, went to the phrase “as the case may be” and found that the rate was even broad enough to cover the letter of attribution. It does not make sense, therefore, to limit section 18, paragraph 1, to the term “sales agreement.” MahaRERA therefore clarifies that the following transactions or projects do not require the registration of a MahaRERA project for a sale or sale agreement, namely: Referring to the definition of “contract for sale” as defined in Section 2, point c), the court decided that this definition was only an agreement between the purchaser and the owner. , and it cannot therefore be said that a letter of attribution containing the terms is not an agreement between the parties. The Tribunal also found that, in a number of cases, the aforementioned letters of attribution were found to be enforceable in a number of cases and that, therefore, the legality and validity of the aforementioned letters of award are not questioned. 4A. When paragraph 4 has been closed in accordance with Section 4 (section 1) of Section 4: Whether it was concluded before or after the start of the Maharashtra condominiums (regulation relating to the promotion of construction, sale, management and promotion of transfers) (amendment and validation provisions) of 1983 (modification and validation), it remains , for whatever reason, and , the order or order of a court, may be considered as proof of a contract in an action for a special performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act of 1963 or evidence of partial performance of a contract within the meaning of Section 53A of the Property Act, 1882, or as evidence of an incidental transaction that should not be carried out with a registered instrument.] Different types of transactions were carried out by The owners of Maharashtra with flat n buyers. H. with a variety of documentation.
The authorities were confronted with a particular situation in which these various documents were presented to them by the complainant buyers as evidence of an agreement with the owners. These agreements and documents were established by the complainants as a basis for claiming interest or punishing failing contractors, in accordance with Section 18 of the RERA. The above view was given by MahaRERA`s Warrant Officer in the case of Naim Kamruddin Shaikh and 14 Ors vs JVPD Pvt Features Ltd with complaint No. CC006000001358 in the order of December 29, 2017, in which he considered that the letter of award was the first step in the sale agreement and therefore found that Section 19 of the RERA Act was not attracted. Section 19, paragraph 2, and Article 19, paragraph 4, reproduce here one of the questions that the authorities immediately noted is whether a homebuyer who had not entered into a registered contract is an “Allotte” within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the RERA Act. If a simple letter of award could be used as a basis for collecting interest and penalties against defective owners if it had not executed or registered a formal “sale agreement” after the stamp duty payment. In most cases, the owner had issued a letter of award in exchange for a partial payment for the accommodation. The aforementioned attribution letters were complete with the terms of transfer of a given unit and were barely for sale under a formal agreement.