LR 22 Why do I consider Tower-wise construction as illegal and unethical

 There are 7 reasons for which I consider the Tower-wise construction adopted by La Residentia Developers , as illegal

  1. It violates the original agreement's payment  condition which specifies how much money is to be paid at what stage of construction. The buyer under this new arrangement is paying advance instalment of Rs. 2 lakh approx which the builder should treat as a loan and pay interest thereupon.Also bankers who are releasing loan instalment should acknowledge that there cannot be two agreements between the same builder-buyer for the same flat.Those who want a new agreement have to cancel the old one. Bankers have followed original agreements and demand letters as per progress of work as basis for payment. Now , suddenly they are disbursing loan without any work being done. It also makes them unsafe. But the bankers are under influence of builder's money and completely ignoring this basis requirement of security for loan.This violation of agreement should be taken cognizanace by up-rera .  and the reserve Bank of India.
  2. It discriminates between the buyers who pay advance instalment and those who dont pay advance instalment. As per original agreement the builder has to use his resources for delivering flats to all buyers who have made payments as per original agreement. But builder is fully neglecting the buyers who are sticking to original BBA. 
  3. The original BBA is registered while new BBA is not registered, so  has no legal validity nor enforceability through a court of law .

  1. Since La Residentia is a RERA- certified project, its builder buyer agreement should be in the format of BBA prescribed under RERA  which is available at up-rera website. In my book I have written one introductory chapter on RERA and another long chapter on clause -wise clarification and comment on up-RERA BBA. Those who are interested to  know the deficiency in their agreement draft may read this book may find it on Amazon-Kindle . The name of this book is How to buy a house in India at link https://www.amazon.in/How-buy-house-India-complete-ebook/dp/B084V2WMVN/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=how+to+buy+a+house+in+India&qid=1606580715&sr=8-2 

 Those who are not interested in reading this book may see the format of  BBA  and themself may compare clause wise between the RERA prescribed draft and the draft of their own agreement .The RERA prescribed draft is available at the link

 https://up-rera.in/pdf/UPRERA_ATS_2018.pdf .Due to not following the prescribed format, the agreement has become illegal and devoid of necessary protections for the buyer and tools to ensure enforceability .

 

5.The builder is not taking any measure to test the structural stability of the building before re-starting work on a structure which remained exposed to weather for more than 4 years .this issue should be taken cognizance of by Hon'ble Supreme court because the NBCC works are being done after necessary testings.The associated risks , I have already covered in my earlier blog LR 20 ( English) and LR 21( Hindi). There is a risk to the life of workers also. This matter should be taken cognizance of by the local labour commissioner.

6. For getting the completion certificate accepted, the necessary condition is that construction should be done as per National Building Code NBC of India. Now when construction is done without doing testing of old part and without dismantling and reconstructing the deteriorated part, it may or may not attain the strength requirement prescribed in NBC.So it will be illegal if the completion certificate issued by builder is accepted by the authority.

7. Unless CC is accepted, OC/ Occupancy Permission will not be issued by authority as per Apartment Act.Without OC you cannot legally stay and legally get any electricity water or gas connection .Also it will not be registered in your name which among other things would restrict you from selling it and will bear the risk of some fake claim for the same unit.

These are not just my opinion These are rule based facts.Those who doubt may verify it.Those who believe should raise it in their respective forums courts and groups.


please like Agree or disagree in the comment box so that I can evaluate myself


 


 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LR 26 : Delay in delivery of reserved order is not a bad sign

    Today I saw another sign of worry and disappointment from one of our members, Shri Deepak Kumar. He expressed his disappointment over delay in delivery of reserved order on La Residentia by the honourable supreme court. I felt that I should express what I know and what I feel so that his worries may be reduced. I have told most of my points earlier also, adding only a few today. Since my old post is lost among a series of other posts, this time I decided to post on blog so as to keep it readily available as and when required or searched . It is a common query of most of   members as to what is happening in supreme court and when will the reserved decision will be delivered.Also, what is the next date. The next date is fixed on 22-3-2021. Since order was reserved on our issue of 8 feb 2021, hearing has been done on 22/2/21,4/3/21 and 5/3/21 dates. As I have already written there are many issues to be resolved, in the Amrapali case. As we all know supreme co...
Read more

LR 24 : How to oppose tower wise proposal in limited time during Supreme court hearing

  Many of our members want that our advocate should be told to strongly oppose the process of tower wise construction. I have also written scattered blogs against tower-wise construction. Here,in short, I am trying to summarize the most significant   points so that our advocate may pick what he feels useful for telling in court 1.        Builder has no financial capacity to complete tower wise construction even if some innocents buyers are ready to give all balance amount in advance. This is evident from the following facts : a.        The payment from buyer side is hardly 10% of the total fund requirement. If claims he can add 90% , where is the money? If there is money why is he requesting SC to lift ban from selling 632 units which he already has admitted that belong to Stunning Construction. In this regard Rameshji has added that prior to 23-7-2017, when all 632 were under him , why did he not try to use the...
Read more