Homebuyer Could Not Avoid Flat Payment Obligations Over Vastu Objection To Toilet Layout: Maharashtra RERA

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has recently held that a homebuyer who objected to the placement of a lavatory in a flat on Vastu-Shastra grounds could not avoid payment obligations under the agreement for sale.

MahaRERA member Ravindra Deshpande was dealing with a complaint filed by Heet Builders Pvt Ltd seeking a declaration that its termination of an agreement for sale executed with homebuyer Bhharati Kondaji Kanade was valid on account of non-payment of the balance consideration amount.

The dispute concerned Flat No. 107 in the promoter's “Hubtown Harmony A Wing” project, which Kanade had agreed to purchase under an agreement for sale dated June 24, 2022 for a total consideration of ₹1.34 crore.

According to the promoter, the allottee paid ₹71.30 lakh towards the flat but failed to pay the remaining consideration amount despite repeated demand notices. The promoter subsequently issued a pre-termination notice and later terminated the agreement while forfeiting ₹20.88 lakh towards liquidated damages.

Kanade opposed the complaint and contended that at the time of purchase another identical flat had been shown to her and that she later discovered that the lavatory in Flat No. 107 was located in the north-east corner.

She further stated that being a religious person following Vastu-Shastra, she had objected to the lavatory placement because “Vastu Shastra prohibits a lavatory in the north-east corner of a house.”

Kanade also alleged that due to deteriorating health she was unable to monitor the progress of the project and later found the flat occupied by the promoter's project manager. She further contended that the agreement had been unilaterally cancelled without adjudication before MahaRERA and alleged that the promoter had permitted third-party occupation of the flat.

“It is observed that the respondent, on the other hand, contends that she was unable to keep track of the progress of construction and raises grievance that the lavatory was not constructed in accordance with Vastu-Shastra,” the Authority observed.

The Authority noted that the allottee had herself expressed willingness to pay the balance consideration in a letter dated July 1, 2024, though she disputed liability to pay interest and continued objecting to the flat layout.

“It is pertinent to note that under the said Agreement for Sale of the subject flat, time was of the essence of the contract. Any default in payment of the agreed consideration would result in termination of the contract, along with deduction of the agreed percentage of the total purchase price, in addition to liability for liquidated damages. Furthermore, as per Section 19(6) of the Act, it was the statutory duty of the allottee (respondent herein) to make timely payment of the consideration, without seeking exemption on account of age or other personal circumstances," the Authority observed.

“The respondent, being a contracting party, remains bound by the mutually agreed terms of the contract,” the Authority added.

MahaRERA further observed that it was not vested with the jurisdiction of a civil court to adjudicate “substantial, comprehensive, or incidental contractual disputes between the parties” through a counterclaim.

“If the respondent is genuinely aggrieved by the layout of the flat or any facilities attached thereto, she is always at liberty to institute a separate complaint before this Authority in accordance with RERA Act 2016,Such a course of action would ensure that the grievance is examined independently within the statutory framework without conflicting it with the present proceedings which are confined to the issues arising out of the complainant's claim,” the Authority observed.

At the same time, taking note of the allottee's age and health condition, MahaRERA granted her a final 60-day opportunity to clear the balance dues.

It directed that upon payment of all dues, the promoter must hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the flat. However, it clarified that if the allottee failed to make payment within the stipulated period, the promoter would be entitled to terminate the agreement and deduct liquidated damages in accordance with the contractual terms.

For Complainant (Heet Builders Private Limited): Advocate Priyanka Rane.

For Respondent (Mrs. Bhharati Kondaji Kanade): Advocate Amrin Khan.