Lodha Developers-Casa Univis, Thane — UNJUST DEMAND FOR BRICKWORK INSTALMENT

Address:

Maharashtra

GRIEVANCE : UNJUST DEMAND FOR BRICK WORK

Brick Work demand note UNJUST AND UNCONVENTIONAL :
Lodha Builders have raised the demand note for "Initiation of Brick Work" for their Cielo-C building from all 28 floor-buyers at the time of laying slab on 7th floor in a building which is supposed to be 28 floors. Having booked a flat on 23 rd floor and seeing slab only up to 6th floor, I took up the matter with my Relationship Mnager Mr Manoj at Lodha HO who refused to listen to any logic and kept telling me that the demand is as per the agreement signed and registered.
My submission is as under :
a) The terms in an agreement are prepared both with reference to the flat(entity) booked and with reference to the building/surrounding in which the flat is located. As per my understanding, terms of payment covering RCC Structure and Slabs are interpreted with reference to the entire building while terms of payment covering Brick work/plaster work /possession/interior etc are interpreted with reference to the flat which is booked.
b) The RCC structure erected is a load bearing structure and even the lower slabs form the supportive load bearing structure for the entire building. Hence, with every slab built there is a proportionate payment liability on part of all the flat owners which is understandable. However, the brick wall/plastering/possession, are not part of the load bearing structure and are exclusive to the flat/floor and used for the purpose of separation or privacy only. Hence the payment liability for these installments should arise only when corresponding work is started on respective floor.
c) As per the commonly accepted norms in the building industry(also as per MCHI), the chronology in terms of payment schedule in agreement clearly reflects the chronology of construction steps that are undertaken. If the chronology was not reflective of construction steps, every builder would collect the installments of ?Brick work/Plaster work and Possession? from all flat buyers right after completing the first floor slab simply by making one flat ready on first floor for possession !!
d) Logically, therefore, payment towards Brickwork/Plaster/Possession should become applicable only when the construction work reaches the said floor/flat and not otherwise. Thus, even the respective payment clause has to be interpreted with respect to the flat and not the entire structure. Not every one reads and gets vetted the clauses of an agreement and many people like me simply depend upon the integrity and honesty of the builder and expect that builder will be fair and trustworthy throughout the execution of the project. Also, even if the clause of an agreement is found ?bad in law? the same stands null and void. I have paid the Brick work demand under protest under the threat of Penal Interest but it is not fair and just to collect the brick work installment in advance in this skewed manner.
e) It is pertinent to note that Lodha Builder's legal department has conveyed to some members that "the brickwork demands were sent by system error" and have subsequently reversed the same. A builder cannot follow dual standards among his customers. In all fairness, I have also requested Lodha Builder to reverse the Demand note for brick work raised for my flat(CIELO-C-2304) and adjust the payment made, against the demand note raised for the 10th slab or give me appropriate credit. The Builder has not yet responded and I request you to help me out in resolving this issue.