‘Fix Implementation Gaps & Preserve RERA’s Core Work,’ Says Expert

Q. I refer to the recent remarks by the Chief Justice of India to scrap RERA since it has only helped builders and not homebuyers. His bench observed that instead of safeguarding homebuyers, RERA is increasingly seen as favouring defaulting builders. The CJI further said RERA is failing in its purpose of protecting homebuyers and ensuring accountability in the real estate sector, adding that it may be better to abolish it altogether. The bench also criticised delays in dispute resolution, weak enforcement and the growing perception that RERA authorities are ineffective and biased. You have been closely associated with framing RERA and its implementation in Maharashtra. How do you view these comments? Is scrapping RERA justified? —– Ninad Sule, Santa Cruz (W)

A. The remarks of the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India must be viewed in the right spirit and perspective. They deserve serious attention from all RERA authorities and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. I welcome the observations, as they have jolted both state RERA bodies and the Government of India into introspection. The reported comments are sharp and call for immediate corrective action. The experience of homebuyers in Maharashtra broadly aligns with the court’s concerns. There have been delays in dispute resolution, weak enforcement and a growing perception that authorities are ineffective and tend to favour defaulting builders.

The CJI’s dissatisfaction over the appointment of retired IAS officers as chairpersons of RERA authorities in various states and union territories also reflects deeper structural concerns. However, I do not agree with the suggestion that RERA should be abolished. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 contains strong provisions to safeguard homebuyers’ interests. Scrapping it would allow errant builders to go scot-free and erase the legal accountability and transparency introduced in the real estate sector. It is unlikely that the CJI literally intended abolition; rather, the strong wording appears meant to shake the system out of complacency.

The message is clear – the Supreme Court is watching, and authorities must course-correct. RERA has brought much-needed transparency by mandating registration of all real estate projects with state authorities, except for small projects on plots not exceeding 500 square metres or those with not more than eight apartments. However, MahaRERA interpreted Section 3(2)(a) in a manner that exempted projects with 200 to 250 flats in 25-to-30- storey towers if the plot area was within 500 square metres. This reading, in my view, defeats the legislative intent, which never aimed to exempt such large developments.

A similar issue arises in redevelopment projects. MahaRERA has maintained that residents in the rehabilitation portion of redevelopment schemes are not covered under RERA. Mumbai Grahak Panchayat has consistently argued that when a redevelopment project includes a sale component, the rehab portion should not be excluded. Persisting with such builder-friendly interpretations inevitably strengthens the perception highlighted by the CJI. Coincidentally, a Real Estate Development Conclave was held in Delhi the day after the court’s remarks, attended by the MoHUA minister.

I raised these specific issues, along with other areas requiring amendment. The minister has indicated a willingness to incorporate the suggestions of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat in the proposed amendments to RERA to ensure stronger protection for homebuyers. The path forward lies not in dismantling RERA, but in enforcing it in letter and spirit.

Advocate Shirish V Deshpande is chairman, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. Queries can be sent to him on email: shirish50@yahoo.com

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/