The laws like U.P. Apartment Act 2010 and the RERA prohibits any such alteration of original plan after allotment without consent, but the development authorities take help of Govt. orders which are not applicable on Underdevelopment projects to eclipse the law and help private developers to earn windfall profit and delay the projects.
Now that the Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA) brings the brokers into its ambit, the question that still stands is: What are the grey zones left which are not defined in the prescribed Act? What if the broker or builder has made the verbal promises to the buyer? What would be legal position if the marketing firm/broker misleads the buyer without the knowledge or consent of the builder?How can buyer be compensated if he has bought the property on the promise of misleading claims?
What has been an interesting finding during this fiscal year is the fact that a number of relatively smaller developers but with impeccable track record of delivery and consumer satisfaction are breaking the myth that it is the sheer volume and premium that elevates a company at the Brand Leadership Chart.
It is not that I don’t know about it; I don’t care about it. I have rather consciously developed this image over the years. I am never ashamed or apologetic about my identity or public perception. I very much enjoy the fact that not so professionals within the built environment, fellow corrupt journalists, shady builders and most stupid breed of PR and Corporate Communication specialists (sic) maintain a safe distance with a rude journalist like me.
I feel it is my professional and social obligation to raise some issues and point to the grey zones to help other gullible homebuyers who might be having trust left with this association. Many others have already lost trust after finding hidden motives and bullying tactics of the core team after their clarion call to fight for the rights of homebuyers. Many of them even allege this buyer association to be proxy of the builders and taking brief from them.
It is noteworthy that Supertech has not only hit by the dissatisfied homebuyers but also been at the receiving end of government agencies and the law for two of its most ambitious projects, Emerald Court and Czar.
Delivery delays, mismatch in area, changes in structure or designs in a project and developers going back on other promises have been quite common. These issues have given rise to consumer activism, in courts and outside. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) slapping a fine of INR 630 crore on DLF gave some hope to the buyers.
The industry body Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India (CREDAI) has thus far failed to act against the erring builders. They had only been vocal with a resolve to suspend the members who have repeatedly gone back on promises to buyers.
The residents of a housing society, Supertech Emerald Court, in Noida were taken aback one fine morning when they found the office of facility management locked. The builder had left the maintenance overnight after having tussle with the Residents’ Welfare Association (RWA) for quite some time over the maintenance, or rather the lack of it. The residents alleged that the builder had left them in the lurch as it was not a proper handover of maintenance to the RWA.
The story goes like this: builder accuses Noida Authority CEO of demanding bribery and harassing for free flat. Abhay Kumar took the moral high ground to sound like a war cry for clean system when he levied strong charges against Noida Authority incumbent CEO of continuous harassment after former declined to provide him with a free flat in his project at Sector 77, Noida.