NOTE: A version of this question was listed here but I had follow up questions that the website was not allowing me to ask - so I posted this as a new discussion with the new information. Any guidance here would be very much appreciated!!
Hi all,
- We are involved in a legal dispute over a redevelopment agreement with our developer in Maharashtra. The developer and our society members signed a traditional registered redevelopment agreement that laid out rental obligations for the developer among other things. It also mentioned if the redeveloped property was more than 20 sq. ft. short of the existing built up area, the developer would compensate the society members, and if it was up to 20 sq. ft. more than the existing builtup area, no party is owed any amounts. However it was silent about the scenario where the redeveloped property ended up being more than 20 sq. ft. in excess of the existing built up area.
- Moreover, the agreement explicitly said the ground floor and parking area is for the existing society members to use. Yet the developer stopped paying rent for over two years, built shops over the ground floor and parking area and after finishing construction
- The project is registered with RERA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the breakdown of the super built up area changes before construction, in the approved municipality plan, and the figure used by the developer to claim compensation from the society members -
*Pre-construction*
*a* _per floor super built up area_ for *existing floors* is *120 sq. mts.*
*Approved Municipality plan*
*b* _per floor super built up area_ for *existing floors* is *120 sq. mts.* (*No change*)
*c* _per floor super built up area_ for *new floor #1* is *130 sq. mts.*
*d* _per floor super built up area_ for *new floor #2* is *140 sq. mts.*
*Legal notice by the developer to society*
* The developer now claims in a legal notice to the society members that the super built up given to existing floors is *160 sq. mts.* (20 sq. mts. > than the highest figure listed in the approved plan)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The developer -
1. is now claiming compensation for 40 sq. mts. or 430 sq. ft. excess area in reconstructed property and won't return possession until this payment is made
2. is offering to adjust rent due in the amount owed above
3. won't offer any compensation for the land he built commercial shops because he has some consent signed by office bearers (without the approval of the society members)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The society members initially pushed back, hired a lawyer to send him legal notice saying when all amounts are considered (including the land he took over illegaly to construct shops), there is nothing owed to anyone (in a gesture of concession since technically the land used for shop construction more than compensated for the excess sq. ft.)
* However, when the builder did not yield, all except two dissenting members (us and one more family) now negotiated a "settlement" with the builder where every member is found responsible for 3 - 4 lacs *using 160 sq. mts. figure above*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions for this group:
1. We want to settle with the builder too, but we want to physically measure the reconstructed building. Is this a fair ask? Is the builder in violation of any laws if he doesn't allow us dissenting members to measure the reconstructed building?
2. If upon physically measuring the reconstructed building, the super built up area is *140* (the figure #d per the approved municipality plan), is it legal for the builder to use that figure in assessing increased super built up area for us existing floors instead of the figure #b that the approved plan states for the *existing floors*? If the builder can use the super built up approved for the new floors for our calculations, what is the significance of the super built up for existing floors in approved plans?
3. If upon physically measuring the reconstructed building, the super built up area is *160*, should we report the construction to the municipal corporation?
