Verbal understanding cannot replace written builder-buyer agreement: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a written agreement between a builder and a buyer cannot be substituted for the latter’s oral understanding.

This found no merit in a builder’s argument that a flat purchaser’s attendance at a meeting to extend the assignment’s completion date from July 2015 to 2018 amounts to implicit approval of the extension. The High Court affirmed the verdict of the RERA Appellate Tribunal, which ordered the unit purchaser for a residential project in Kurla to return nearly Rs 1 crore due to delays.

The previous month’s written record may only be updated or canceled with the help of a subsequent written record, and an oral agreement by itself will no longer have the effect of converting the genuine phrases and situations. It dismissed the builder’s request for a RERA order in 2020 or the establishment of an appeal tribunal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act.

The agreement between the builder and the purchaser considers ownership as of July 2015 and includes six contingencies in which the date of ownership will be regularly extended, failing which the transportation will be paid to the purchaser at a rate of 9% simple interest. will be eligible for a refund of the money. The customer sent a notice asking for a refund since there was no transportation and no agreed-upon contingency.

The builder suggested that the return be sought immediately based on the costs of a daughter’s higher training overseas. The purchasers stated to the HC that they wanted to finish the project because it was becoming delayed. “Asking the builder for updates on the project would no longer deprive the complainants of their right to claim a refund (as provided under RERA),” the HC noted.

According to Justice Dangre, the construction has not been finished yet. “The violation of circumstances withinside the settlement is thus straightforward and simple at the floor that an oral agreement was established with the assent of a complainant to extend the duration last touch of the assignment, resulting in a denial of the vested right,” it noted. The complainants are not eligible for a refund or compensation under RERA Section 18 (Refund and Compensation to Buyer for Failure to Provide Ownership by Using Builder).

“If a celebration has entered into an agreement that has been reduced in writing, the events are permitted to regulate the terms and conditions thereof or update it by utilizing executing another agreement/settlement in writing,” Justice Dangre remarked. “The events are assured with the help of employing its terms and situations where the settlement among the events is a written settlement,” the HC noted. Section ninety-one of the Indian Evidence Act prohibits any celebration from using oral evidence to ascertain its meaning, save if the written settlement does not cover the entire settlement or if there is any uncertainty.

Oral proof can be used to demonstrate a variety of scenarios, as long as it does not contradict the written agreement.”

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are for informational purposes only based on industry reports and related news stories. PropertyPistol does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information and shall not be held responsible for any action taken based on the published information.