Irrevocable blanket consent taken from flat-buyers will not help builders who want to construct additional floors that were not mentioned in original plans, the Bombay High Court (HC) has said. Justice Roshan Dalvi ruled that “No such consent can be expressly given and every (developer) would be required to take express previous consent of all the flat purchasers for all such additional construction… not incorporated in the approved plans.” The HC upheld a civil court order restraining the builder Shah and Modi Developers from adding more floors to Swapnalok building in Malad, Mumbai. A builder has to take the consent of all flat-buyers for making any alterations in, or additions to, the structure of the flats or of the building, after the plans are disclosed at the time of sale. Section 7 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act says a developer has to take the consent of all flat–buyers.
Twenty years after a builder in Mumbai failed to hand over the possession of two flats bought by a couple from Santa Cruz, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered the developer, Pearl Builders, to pay the wife Rs4.18 lakh with a compensation of around Rs10 lakh and the husband Rs3.39 lakh with a compensation of around Rs8 lakh.
Eana and Shyamlal Teckchandani bought the two flats for Rs1.50 lakh each. After the developer failed to hand over the apartments to the Teckchandanis, they sent a letter, on 21 March 2000, asking for the possession. The couple alleged that the builder had created a third-party interest by selling it to another person. Aggrieved, they filed separate complaints with the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 19 July 2000.
A builder will have to pay a Chembur resident Rs23.8 lakh for not handing over possession of a 680-sq ft flat booked for Rs2.72 lakh in 1994. PK Constructions and its former partners will also have to pay the complainant, Lokeshwar Singh Kshatriya, compensation of around Rs6.5 lakh. Mr Kshatriya alleged that he learnt that, in April 2009, the builder had demolished the building where the flat was situated and so the possibility of getting the flat vanished. In 2010, he filed a complaint with the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, praying for either possession of the flat in the same project or any other project undertaken by the builder. Alternatively, he claimed compensation of Rs23.8 lakh, the market value of the flat in 2010. The Commission directed both partners of the erstwhile firm to pay compensation to Mr Kshatriya.