Haryana RERA Orders Refund to Homebuyer Misled by Godrej Branding in Joint Venture Project
Pranav B Prem
In a significant ruling, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram, has granted relief to a homebuyer who booked a flat under the mistaken belief that it was a Godrej Properties project. The Authority held that the use of Godrej’s name and branding in promotional materials amounted to misrepresentation under Section 12 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and ordered a full refund of the amount paid along with interest.
The case arose from a complaint filed by the homebuyer, who had booked a unit in the ‘Godrej Icon’ project located at Sector 88A and 89A, Gurugram. The complaint was filed against M/s Oasis Landmarks LLP—the developer—and Godrej Properties Ltd., which was presented as the developer in brochures and marketing materials. The complainant submitted that he had booked the flat in May 2015 after being impressed by the Godrej brand and had relied on a brochure which showed Godrej Properties as the developer, with no prominent reference to Oasis Landmarks LLP.
According to the complainant, he paid ₹5 lakhs as booking amount and later deposited 20% of the flat’s cost even before the issuance of an allotment letter or builder-buyer agreement (BBA). The allotment letter was issued on 18.11.2015 for a unit on the 25th floor, priced at ₹1.65 crores. The BBA, signed on 22.02.2016, provided a construction period of 48 months from the date of allotment with an additional 6-month grace period. Clause 4.2 of the BBA specifically defined this timeframe.
The complainant claimed that the respondents violated the terms of the agreement by raising premature payment demands and failed to follow the agreed payment plan. Further, the project was originally advertised as a low-density development with a promise of no more than 40 units per acre. However, in mid-2018, the respondents revised the building plans and increased the number of units from 662 to 747. The land area mentioned in the BBA as 9.359 acres was also later reduced to 6.459 acres. These changes were made without informing the complainant and without obtaining consent from two-thirds of the allottees, as mandated under Section 14(2)(ii) of the RERA Act.
The respondents, in their defense, argued that all contractual documents, including the application form, allotment letter, and BBA, clearly named Oasis Landmarks LLP as the developer. They contended that Godrej Properties was only a joint venture partner and was openly disclosed as such through an admission deed dated 22.08.2014. According to them, the complainant could not allege misrepresentation merely because Godrej’s branding was used, since the identity of the developer was not concealed in the agreement documents.
However, HRERA Gurugram rejected this contention. The Authority observed that the project brochure prominently displayed the Godrej Properties name and logo while referring to Oasis Build Home as merely a joint venture partner. It also took note of the fact that the buyer’s agreement itself bore the Godrej logo on its cover page. These details, according to the Authority, reasonably led the complainant to believe that the project was being developed and delivered by Godrej Properties Ltd. The Authority found that such use of branding created a false impression and influenced the homebuyer’s investment decision.
Referring to the proviso to Section 12 of the RERA Act, the Authority held that where a promoter misrepresents facts, and the allottee chooses to withdraw from the project, the allottee is entitled to a refund along with interest. The Authority observed that the complainant had indeed chosen to withdraw on the basis of misrepresentation, and hence was eligible for a refund of the entire amount deposited.
Additionally, the Authority found the respondents guilty of violating Section 14(2)(ii) of the Act for changing the sanctioned building plans without obtaining the required consent from two-thirds of the allottees. It emphasized that the revised plans dated 03.10.2018 had been sanctioned after the enforcement of the RERA Act, and thus the requirements under the statute were fully applicable.
Taking note of both the misrepresentation and unauthorized changes in the project structure, HRERA held that the complainant was entitled to a refund under Sections 12 and 14(2)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Authority directed the respondents to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 11.10% per annum, from the respective dates of deposit until the date of actual refund.
Appearance
For Complainant: Rohit Oberoi (Advocate)
For Respondent No.1: Saurabh Guaba (Advocate)
Cause Title: Pankaj Arora Through SPA Holder Kashti Arora V. M/s Oasis Landmarks LLP & others
Case No: Complaint No-2397 of 2024
Coram: Shri. Ashok Sangwan [Member]
