NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the developer of a housing development remains legally required to obtain ‘certificate of completion‘ for the structure even if it is besieged EMI paying apartment owners take possession of their homes before the issuance of this compulsory certificate.
The relief for 36 buyers of apartments in a Calcutta housing estate, who have been suing the developer of RNR Enterprise since 2006, came from a panel of judges SR Bhat and Dipankar Datta, who criticized the National Commission for the resolution of consumer disputes (NCDRC) for saying that apartment buyers should obtain the certificate of completion for the property when they have taken possession of it before the authorities issue the certificate.
The SC said: ‘It is true, the appellants (apartment buyers) should not have taken possession without the certificate of completion. However, that was not a valid reason not to direct the Defendants (builder) to apply for and obtain the Certificate of Completion as required by law.
Under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, it is the builder’s obligation to apply for the certificate of completion. “It is not part of the apartment owner’s duty to request a certificate of completion,” she said. The residential complex is located on Kailash Ghosh Road.
The apartment owners had also complained that the developer had promised many amenities but failed to deliver them, including a playground, common room and lake on adjacent land, which never came to fruition. The developer had said that because the buyers of the apartment had taken possession of their properties on an “as is where is” basis, they were not entitled to any of the services.
The SC argued that the owners of the flats, by registering their properties, did not lose any rights to the promised services which were not provided by the developer. “It was the duty of the NCDRC to fix this,” she said.
“We are compelled to observe that the interviewees (builder) were released by the NCDRC in a manner contrary to the law. This is an appropriate case where the complainants’ (apartment owners) complaint should be referred to the NCDRC to re-examine the complaint in accordance with the law. It is ordered accordingly, ”ordered the bench. However, he also accused the owners of the apartment of taking possession before the builder could even obtain the certificate of competition for the residential complex. “Undoubtedly, they also committed a violation of the law by taking possession of the respective apartments without the certificate of completion, whatever the compulsion may be,” said the CS.
The relief for 36 buyers of apartments in a Calcutta housing estate, who have been suing the developer of RNR Enterprise since 2006, came from a panel of judges SR Bhat and Dipankar Datta, who criticized the National Commission for the resolution of consumer disputes (NCDRC) for saying that apartment buyers should obtain the certificate of completion for the property when they have taken possession of it before the authorities issue the certificate.
The SC said: ‘It is true, the appellants (apartment buyers) should not have taken possession without the certificate of completion. However, that was not a valid reason not to direct the Defendants (builder) to apply for and obtain the Certificate of Completion as required by law.
Under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, it is the builder’s obligation to apply for the certificate of completion. “It is not part of the apartment owner’s duty to request a certificate of completion,” she said. The residential complex is located on Kailash Ghosh Road.
The apartment owners had also complained that the developer had promised many amenities but failed to deliver them, including a playground, common room and lake on adjacent land, which never came to fruition. The developer had said that because the buyers of the apartment had taken possession of their properties on an “as is where is” basis, they were not entitled to any of the services.
The SC argued that the owners of the flats, by registering their properties, did not lose any rights to the promised services which were not provided by the developer. “It was the duty of the NCDRC to fix this,” she said.
“We are compelled to observe that the interviewees (builder) were released by the NCDRC in a manner contrary to the law. This is an appropriate case where the complainants’ (apartment owners) complaint should be referred to the NCDRC to re-examine the complaint in accordance with the law. It is ordered accordingly, ”ordered the bench. However, he also accused the owners of the apartment of taking possession before the builder could even obtain the certificate of competition for the residential complex. “Undoubtedly, they also committed a violation of the law by taking possession of the respective apartments without the certificate of completion, whatever the compulsion may be,” said the CS.
