The landmark order of the RERA court passed by Judge SK Arora has come as a big relief for the five complainants, the official said.

“The Authority establishes the violation of Section 13 of the Act 2016 on the part of Vatika Limited and hereby imposes a penalty under Section 61 of ₹1 lakh in each complaint and further directs the promoter to execute the registered buyer’s agreement as per the model agreement provided in the Real Estate Regulation and Development Rules 2017 within 30 days from the order failing which the Authority shall be bound to invoke penal action under Section 63,” said the order.

Section 13 of the Real Estate Act of 2016, states that the promoter cannot accept a sum of more than 10 per cent of the apartment or plot cost as an advance payment or application fee.

The five complainants cum allottees had approached the RERA Court in October 2022 seeking justice after they failed to get any relief from Vatika Limited. The complainants had booked commercial units in Vatika India Next project in 2018 and paid full consideration to the promoter without executing the BBA, an official said.

A year later, Vatika allegedly transferred their units without their consent to a different project, Vatika One, in Sector 16 of Gurugram and also reduced the unit sizes to 500 sqft from the original size of 1000 sqft, he said.

“Whereas, in the instant matter the respondent has taken 100 per cent of the consideration without executing the BBA,” the order said.

The court also imposed a penalty of ₹25000 to be paid to each complainant within 30 days from the date of this order under Section 63 of the act for non-complying with the directions of the Authority with its order dated February 23, the official said.

The RERA court has directed Vatika Limited to pay interest for every month of delay from the due date of possession till now at the prescribed rate, he added.

Responding to the court order, Vatika Ltd spokesperson said, “The company will appeal this order because all the facts of the case and the company’s representations have not been considered”.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.