Delay in property possession

Delay in property possession

Delay in delivery of possession in any property is most commonly faced and frustrating problems for a property buyer/purchaser. It makes it difficult or impossible to plan for the future, and increases other related costs. Here is a list of legal remedies that a bona fide purchaser/buyer can do:

GROUNDS

WHAT PURCHASER CAN DO

possession is not delivered on time

a notice to the builder, claiming refund of the amounts paid along with interest and/or damages

Delay in delivery of possession/ Non-delivery of possession

claim the money given to the builder

the purchaser/ complainant is buying the property for personal use

file a complaint seeking relief in the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Delay in delivery of possession

Claim damages for loss of opportunity caused to the purchaser, had he invested his money elsewhere.

Non-delivery of possession

Claim the money required to buy alternate accommodation at the ongoing market value in the respective area

purchaser/ complainant is sure to get possession of the flat in next few months or years

claim compensation for the money that he will spend as rent on an alternate accommodation

Delay in delivery of possession

Claim interest on the payment made till date

Fraud

civil and criminal proceedings can be initiated

Against the Indian Contract Act, 1872

File for damages or specific performance

Precaution:
Before signing any contract, buyers should read all the points, including the disclaimers and check the builder’ financial credibility.

Recent Judgments
  • Pradeep Narula v. Granite Gate Properties - Consumer Complaint No. 315 of 2014 Dated 23rd August, 2016
  • The Commission held that the Builder was under a contractual obligation to complete the construction and hand over possession of the apartments to the Complainant within 39 months from the date of allotment, and had failure of the Builder to do so do not qualify to any reasons and excuses.

  • Jitendra Balani v. Unitech - Consumer Case No. 510 of 2015 Dated 8thFebruary 2016
  • Commission found that none of the reasons given by the Builder for the delay of almost 5 years, such as non-availability of construction material or labour, were tenable and rejected the argument of the Builder regarding government regulations and economic recession being a justification of the delay. Further, held for an interest to be charged at a rate ranging from 18% to 24% per annum compounded annually.



PLEASE NOTE

These articles are given unreservedly as general aides. While we do our best to ensure these aides are useful, we don't give any assurance that they are exact or proper to your circumstance, or assume any liability for any misfortune their utilization may cause you. Try not to depend on data given here without looking for experienced legitimate guidance first. If all else fails, please dependably counsel a lawyer and fill the query box or call us at +91-8521228202 or drop us a mail at consult@beingyourlawyer.com.