Centre Proposes To Submit Model Builder-Buyer Agreement With Mandatory RERA Clauses Before Supreme Court

Update: 2022-10-05 07:41 GMT

The Central Government has proposed to submit before the Supreme Court a model builder-buyer agreement with mandatory clauses which cannot be altered by the States or the Union Territories.

Additional Solicitor General Aiswharya Bhati and amicus curiae Devashish Bharuka submitted before the Court that the model agreement will have Part A which will have core clauses with the mandatory provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 for the protection of the home buyers and Part B which will contain additional clauses as per the requirements of the individual States/UTs. However, these additional clauses will not be contrary to or dilute in any manner the clauses in Part 'A'.

Taking note of these submissions, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli posted the matter for further consideration on November 28.

The development happened in the PIL filed by Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a model builder-buyer agreement. Earlier, the Supreme Court had observed that a model agreement was necessary to protect the interests of home buyers and had asked the Union to frame a model agreement after taking inputs from the States. Later, the Court asked the Union to scrutinize the rules framed by the States under RERA to ascertain if essential norms have been incorporated.

On September 30, the the following States have not submitted their responses:

(i) Andhra Pradesh; (ii) Chhattisgarh; (iii) Gujarat;(iv) Jharkhand;(v) Madhya Pradesh;(vi) Maharashtra;(vii) Manipur;(viii) Mizoram;(ix) Odisha;(x) Uttar Pradesh; and (xi) West Bengal.

 On the other hand, thirteen States and two Union Territories have filed their responses. The States which have not filed their responses were directed to do so positively within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the Principal Secretaries of the State Government in the Ministry of Urban Development/Affairs shall personally remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to why they should not be proceeded with under the coercive arm of law.

The Haryana and Maharashtra wings of the Confederation of Real Estate Developers Associations of India (CREDAI) also told the Court that they will give their responses.

 Case Title : Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay versus Union of India|Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1216/2020

Click here to read/download the order

Tags:    

Similar News