MahaRERA said husband can pursue a complaint before the RERA authority provided he is duly authorised to represent the wife
A husband can pursue a complaint before RERA authority against a real estate developer even if the flat is registered solely in his wife’s name, provided he is duly authorised to represent her, according to an interim order passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).
The authority held that a husband who was also the primary co-borrower of the home loan and held a valid Power of Attorney (PoA) from his wife could maintain the complaint alleging delayed possession on her behalf.
The case
The order arose from a dispute involving a flat in a Nagpur, Maharashtra project.
The developer, had challenged the maintainability of the complaint filed by the husband of the flat owner, arguing that he was not the registered owner or allottee of the flat and his relationship was that of a stranger. The sale deed for the property was exclusively in the name of his wife, the developer argued, and therefore he could not be treated as an “allottee” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 31 of the RERA Act despite not being a registered owner or allottee in the project. Since he is not the registered owner, he cannot be considered an ‘allottee’ as defined under Section 2(d) of RERA. The registered Sale Deed for the flat is executed exclusively in the name of the wife, and the complainant is not a party to the document. Therefore, his relationship with the promoter is that of a stranger and not that of a buyer under an Agreement for Sale," the developer submitted.
Husband said he had the authority
On the other hand, the husband of the flat owner, however, argued that he was not a stranger to the transaction. He was the primary co-borrower of the housing loan, and been authorised by his wife through an authority letter and a notarised General Power of Attorney to file and pursue proceedings before MahaRERA. He had approached the authority over alleged delay in possession, incomplete amenities and other issues at the project.
"I have gone through the application and reply of the developer, in my opinion firstly it is necessary to peruse the provisions of Section 2 (x) which provides the definition of “family," the MahaRERA said in its order.
The MahaRERA quoted Section 2 (x) of the RERA Act, stating that any immediate family member, including a husband, wife, minor son, or unmarried dependent daughter, forms part of the allottee unit and possesses valid locus standi to institute and maintain a complaint before this Authority.
Since the subject flat is allotted for the habitation and benefit of the entire family, any member of such family suffering from non-possession, incomplete amenities, or structural defects is an "aggrieved person" having the legal right to file a complaint," the MahaRERA said in its order.
The MahaRERA order said, "After perusal of the above sections under RERA and the legal documents on record, this Authority finds that the complainant (husband), is the co-borrower of the housing loan and holds a valid, notarised General Power of Attorney and Authority Letter from the registered allottee (wife) authorising him to file and prosecute the complaint."
"Under MahaRERA Regulations and general law, an allottee can be represented before this Authority by her authorised Power of Attorney holder / spouse. Therefore, the complainant cannot be termed as an "unrelated stranger" without locus standi, and the respondent's (developer's) objection is rejected," the MahaRERA concluded in its ruling.
comments
Other categories
Recent Comments
