Several concerned citizens of Bengaluru who’re well aware of the difficulties faced by laymen while investing in a house in the city, have managed to get a point to draft their objections and suggestions towards the amended real estate bill 2013. Though these were not invited for the consultation programme organised through the Parliamentary Select Committee on Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill, 2013, within the city on June 10th as well as 11th, they did not quit. These groups of citizens contacted the chairman from the Select Committee and requested will the Committee will allow them in order to submit their objections and recommendations for the Bill. As the Committee taken care of immediately them positively and asked these them submit their memorandum at the first, the groups voluntarily held discussions on benefits and drawbacks of the Bill and possess pooled their objections and recommendations. The copy will be posted to Union Housing Ministry and also to Chairman of the Parliamentary Panel on real estate bill, Nagesh Aras that spearheaded initiative told Citizen Issues. Bengaluru citizens including Nagesh Aras, Michael S Shankar, Ajit N Naik, Abrar Hazarika, Ramanatha Iyer, Sanjay Vijayaraghavan as well as Muralidhar Rao have given their own inputs towards drafting the arguments. Advocate Mithun Garehalli who offers fought several consumer rights instances too has contributed towards submitting objections, from consumers point associated with view. In the objections drawn up by them, they have especially raised concern over allowing alter in ownership of common region with consensus from 2/3rd vast majority, lack of clarity on the meaning of ‘promoter, ’ the clause that allows customer to get project paperwork only after completion of task, formation of dispute settlement discussion boards, advantage given to builder by which makes it not necessary for him in order to declare amenities for each apartment during the time of registration etc.
About the real estate bill The real estate bill 2013 that was originally drafted during the period of UPA government, was amended through the NDA government. The amended Bill faced competitors from Rajya Sabha members when it had been tabled. Therefore the government sent this to Parliamentary Select Committee to gather opinion of stakeholders. One from the salient features of the real estate bill may be the establishment of state level regulatory authorities called Real Estate Regulatory Authorities (RERA). Residential property projects, with some exceptions, have to be registered with RERA. On enrollment, the promoter must upload information on the project on RERA web site. The 21-member Select Committee going by MP Anil Madhav Dork has sought the individuals, companies, experts and institutions to submit their opinion about the Bill. Here are some from the major observations made by citizen groups about the said Bill: The real estate bill does not align well with a few of the existing acts. Some of the actual specifications in Indian Contract Behave, Registration Act and Companies Act happen to be overlooked in the proposed Expenses. The Bill does not address the problem of non-registered property. It should make sure that if a developed property is actually non-registered, then the developer needs to be penalised/ blacklisted rather than penalising the client for the misdeed of the actual developer. The bill must protect the shoppers against legal default by the actual developer; often in connivance along with various authorities. The bill should mandate sanctioning government bodies to declare specific acceptance criteria within the public domain. Information should be accessible for public on how a house approval was sanctioned/ denied. This particular creates traceability and establishes responsibility. The term “handing over” the project to customer needs to be elaborated or should be changed with “transfer of title. ” There must be a specific clause that limits a developer/ promoter from getting deposit or advance payment from customer without first getting into agreement of sale. A clause needs to be added on maintenance fund. Maintenance fund collected from customers/ residents ought to be kept in a separate account and supply accounts to allottees. Promoter should purchase the maintenance of unsold units instead of imposing the burden on additional residents. Unlike Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act (KAOA) that allows the change in ownership of common area within an apartment only if all the owners get to consensus, the Bill proposes that with 2/3rd majority can alter anyone’s share of property. As this really is against the system of organic justice, the clause has to become amended to make it about the lines of KAOA. The Bill doesn’t have provision on the lines of KAOA to safeguard the interest of customers by means of conferring a title to each apartment once the whole property and all apartments are submitted into it. In the proposed Bill, any the main property automatically receives a name, devoiding protection to customer. While the Bill asks the developer to declare how big each apartment, it does not require him to declare the precise details of the “limited common areas” mounted on it. This allows the developer to market parts of the common places to any customer. The Bill fails to protect the client as the developer is not necessary to declare amenities for each apartment during the time of registration. It allows developer to market off common areas to additional clients. Clause 2 (zf) from the amendment lacks clarity. It defines a promoter since the one who has more than two apartments with regards to selling. How is it possible in order to prove if the apartment is with regards to selling or not. And what if the amount of apartments is less than 3, does it mean he ceases to become a promoter? The issue of amenities of residential properties utilized by commercial clients, employees and their own visiting clients (for ex. club houses) remains unaddressed within the Bill. There is no clarity upon taxation and water and electrical power tariff on residential properties employed for commercial purpose. The Bill should make supply for blacklisting a developer for any particular time or permanently, with regard to unethical practices. Since the Bill discusses uploading details about registered real estate agents and projects in RERA website inside a year of establishing the expert, it should give a process outline how RERA will manage projects within the first year. The Bill also needs to mention about the criteria depending on which the project application might be rejected. The clause comprising Revocation of Registration in the event of wilful default by the creator, does not mention about 50 percent of the deposit amount within the bank. Can it be used by the developer throughout the project or can this be frozen? The Bill doesn’t specify that the clients can download the master plan documents directly from the Registrar’s web site. This allows the developers in order to submit “placeholder” documents for project-approval, but provide a different document set to the actual clients. During the project’s length, the plans may change because of legitimate reasons. The Authority’s website must maintain all versions from the plan and docs online. The Bill does not offer a facility where any customer has the capacity to access any desired version and compare that they have changed. Amendment 50 has removed a few of the critical aspects like specifications as well as external development works, payment times and mode and date associated with possession. Possession of Occupancy Certificate from relevant authority ought to be made mandatory before handing within the apartment to customer. It should specify that no separate service charges can be applied for their transfer of game titles, except the actual fee because applicable. Clause 16 of the Expenses allows a builder to hold off the project deliberately to get rid of his current clients with minimum penalty after which relaunch the project with increased prices. Clause says: “If the promoter fails to complete or is not able to give possession of an condo, plot or building – because of discontinuance of his business as a developer due to suspension or revocation of their registration under this Act for just about any other reason. ” This ought to be redrafted so that developer doesn’t have benefit in resorting to this kind of tactics. The Bill has the dangerous clause. According to the clause, the allottee gets documents and plans only following the possession of the apartment not really before! Before this stage, he’s only entitled to get “information” regarding site and layout plans. RERA, the Bill says is “the authority to get, hold and dispose of home, both movable and immovable. ” However, there is no clarity on when it may utilise this power. The Expert also facilitates amicable conciliation associated with disputes between promoters and allottees via dispute settlement forums. Why is really a forum needed when the Authority is going to be in force? There is no provision in order to terminate the contract and settle the cash after a predetermined wait time period. This allows an unethical customer to just pay the booking amount after which keep defaulting till the project reaches a professional stage. At this stage, the customer would sell off the apartment and reap an enormous profit with practically no expense. Some questions that have already been unanswered: Is the agent’s enrollment specific to each project? Or he’s locked to a builder+project mixture? What happens to the agent whenever a developer is barred from the actual project? Does the agent’s registration expire once the project is completed, or could it be continued for the same project for secondary selling from the apartments? What if the developer/agent supplies a modified copy of plans towards the clients, as compared to what’s registered? How to ensure how the agent gives only approved paperwork, features and terms. Who is accountable when the agent promises extra or various features/terms? (Agent or developer? ) Terms 7 covers complaints about creator, but what about complaint towards agents? While the Societies Registration Act and also the Cooperative Societies Act do not really comprise in forming owners’ organizations, the proposed Bill does not talk about it. Registering a Residents Welfare Association is completely tedious process. Objections by Alternative Law Discussion board City-based Alternative Law Forum as well has drafted some observations on the Bill which it will likely be submitting to the Parliamentary Panel. As per the definition terms, Carpet area was defined as “‘net usable area’ within an apartment excluding the walls’ that was transparent for a buyer whereas within the amended Bill, the word is actually replaced by ‘net usable region. ’ In the Bill, promoter features a person, development authority or open public body, apex state level co-operative real estate finance society, a primary co-operative real estate society, individual, HUF, company, organization, competent authority, associations of individual incorporate or not, cooperative culture. But, government housing authorities too public-private partnerships are kept away from purview of the Bill. Exemption of projects smaller than 1, 000 square meters or 12 apartments in the purview of the real estate regulatory authority (RERA) can lead to the exclusion of a lot of small housing projects. This is based on the implied notion that there’s interface between the buyer and the promoter every day in projects below the threshold that is not true. Even if it’s true, all should be entitled to the advantage of the protectionist regulation being implemented without any discrimination among them. The Bill mandates the promoter to open another bank account for each project and deposit 50 percent (earlier 70%) of the amount received by him for the project in this account. This provides a leeway for that promoter as now he could siphon off the rest 50 percent of the money for other projects which may result in lack of completion from the projects at the agreed time and therefore be detrimental to the housebuyers. According to the amended Section 6 builders can’t be held liable for any delay if authorising agencies neglect to give statutory clearances on period, such as completion certificate along with other approvals or due to pressure majeure. In such cases, the actual Bill says builders can look for extension. This results in further delay and it is often abused by the influential contractors. A key change in area 14 of the proposed law can lead to a buyer not getting that which was promised to him. In the sooner Bill, the builder was prohibited to change the sanctioned plan once approved but underneath the amendment, a builder can ‘undertake small alterations ’just by intimating the customer. ’ One major drawback of the provision is that the extent or kind of minor alteration is not described anywhere in the bill which may be misused by the builders. The Bill makes the authorization of RERA mandatory for ‘Agreement to market, ’ whereas other agreements for example fitting and fixtures, maintenance tend to be ignored. The amended Bill also allows members of real estate regulatory authority to consider employment with private builders, following demitting office. This is repulsive amendment which will encourage unholy nexus between builders and also the Authority while they are within office. Penalties are determined based on potential cost of the project and not based on the type of the defaulter-big or small enterprise. For big companies investing within projects worth crores, max 10 per cent fee is too meagre an amount and therefore won’t have much of a deterrence impact.