Possession Date Not Mentioned In Agreement
12. The NCDRC divided the group of 339 homebuyers into six groups based on whether they took possession, executed transportation items, settled the dispute or sold the apartments before or during the review of the complaint or its claims: 4. At the developer`s presentation, the complainants withdrew dwellings in the housing project. Homebuyers have agreements with the developer. Article 11, point a), of the ABA stipulates that the proponent would endeavour to complete the construction within thirty-six months from the date of implementation of the agreement, except in cases of force majeure. clause 11 (a) provided: (ii) the promoter`s inability to cede ownership within the contractual period constitutes a performance defect within the meaning of Section 2, paragraph 1, point g), which justifies the referral of the jurisdiction transferred to the NCDRC to give instructions for the elimination of the lack of performance; 40. The promoter stated in court that a club house with occupancy facilities such as swimming pool, gymnasium, pool hall, tennis court, badminton court, squash court and communal hall was fully constructed and that a certificate of occupancy was received on 13 May 2019. The developer stated that under the construction rules, it was required to transfer 5 per cent of the group residence area to the BDA as civic housing (CA). The RWA must ask the BDA for an allocation of the CA zone in its favour. After the award, the RWA hands over the area to the owner for the construction of the association. The proponent waived the CA zone in favour of the BDA, formed an RWA and, on June 22, 2010, asked the BDA to award the CA site in favour of the RWA.
The written submissions show that a dispute over the rent costs claimed by the BDA resulted in legal action before Karnataka High Court, which was initiated by the developer and by the RWA, which was approved on 29 June 2015. The developer submitted an urban plan to the City Council. On October 18, 2016, the Supreme Court ordered the municipal administration to approve the town planning plans. The sanction of the town planning plan was sanctioned by a certificate of occupancy on 18 May 2017 and after the construction of the association building on 13 May 2019. The developer explained that he followed with the BDA to allow them to transfer ownership and management of the club to the RWA. As the authorization of the BDA has not yet been received, a new action is being considered. The developer has created photos showing the amenities provided in the clubhouse quarters. Club dues are paid into the RWA account and not into the developer`s account. The position before the Tribunal was not challenged by the applicants.
As a result, we note that the developer did not breach the obligation to make a club-built facility available to the RWA.
Categorised as: 未分类