PER S.S. SANDHU, MEMBER (A)

1. In this appeal Appellant challenges the order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the learned Chairperson, MahaRERA (hereinafter 'the Authority') in the source complaint No' sc10001094 dated 19.12.2018 filed bv Appellant.

2 Facts submitted on record reveal that Appellant as an allottee filed Source Complaint seeking directions to Respondents to register the project, Solitaire Wing 'A' (Building 14) at Balkum, Thane (West) formerly known as'Lilac Building No 14 as an ongoing project as per provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 ( for short'the RERA'). As per procedure, Appellant exercised the option of personal hearing to be given in the said complaint proceedings and had paid the requisite fee of Rs.5000/- as prescribed. After filing the complaint, Appellant continuously monitored on the web site of MahaRERA to check the date of hearing in respect ofthe complaint'

It was never disclosed until Appellant found to his shock and surprise on 05.04.2019 that the impugned order had been passed on 03.04.2019, by the Authority rejecting his complaint on the ground that no violation of Section 3 of the RERA was found as the subject building was complete with OC and the same was also occupied by residents.

3. Being aggrieved, appeal is filed to set aside the lmpugned order passed in utter disregard to natural justice as the Appellant was neither given any notice for hearing nor was heard even though it is wrongly recorded in the order that Appellant was present. Further, contradictions in the impugned order were pointed out by referring to roznama dated 01.03.2019 wherein Respondent is shown as absent even though his submissions stating that OC is received and project is already complete are recorded in para 2 of the order. Appellant contended that as per Section 3 of RERA,

project is required to be registered if OC is not obtained prior to 01.05.2017. He submitted that the building Solitaire Wing 'A' obtained OC on 16.10.2017 implying thereby that the building did not have OC on 01.05.2017 and therefore the building was required to be registered under RERA within three months from 01.05.2017' According to Appellant the view taken by the Authority that there is no violation of Section 3 is erroneous and contrary to the provisions of RERA. He therefore sought to grant relief as prayed for.

4. Learned Counsel for Respondents filed reply and countered the grounds raised by Appellant in his appeal. They submitted that on receiving notice vide e-mail dated 26.02.20t9 for hearing in the complaint proceedings from MahaRERA the Respondents appeared before the Authority on lst March 2019 and made submissions as recorded in para 2 of the impugned order. They also submitted that the same notice was copied and sent to Appellant also. It is further stated that the Respondents were given three months to register the project within which they obtained OC on 16.10.2017. It is contended that since building was complete and OC was obtained on 16.10.2017, there was no need to register the project as rightly held by the Authority.

5. On the basis of submissions of the parties, the only point that arise for our discussions is as to whether the impugned order is sustainable or calls for interference so as to issue necessary directions in respect of registration of the project.

6. On consideration of rival submisslons of the parties and perusing the roznama and impugned order; we find substance in the submissions of the Appellant concerning the contradictions in the impugned order. We also find that Appellant was not present for hearing to contest the claim of Respondents for having received the OC within the period prescribed under RERA. Therefore, the order appears to have been passed on the basis of submissions made by Respondents only in denial of natural justice to Appellant.

7. Considering the fact that the building sought to be registered under the is part of multi-buildings project and is already occupied by residents, its liability for registration has wider implications for all stake holders. In that view of the matter, all aspects relating to registrability of the building need to be gone into by allowing full opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. Accordingly, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order and remand the matter to be considered afresh in its entirety in furtherance of ends of justice.

8. In view of above observations, we pass the following order:-

ORDER

1. Appeal is partly allowed.

2. Impugned order dated 03.04.2019 is set aside'

3. The matter is remanded to the Authority to be decided afresh after providing sufficient oppoftunity of hearing to the parties.

4. No order to costs.

5. Copy of this order be sent to the parties and the Authority as per Section aa() of the RER Act, 2016.