![rss builder free rss builder free](https://www.cloudwards.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/FetchRSSMainPage.png)
The plea that neither central government enforced the 'model builder buyer agreement' in the spirit of RERA nor did the state governments take action against promoters. Upadhyay's plea claimed that the root cause of hardships caused to the petitioner is the agreement of sale and construction, which is manifestly one-sided and does not place the homebuyer on an equal platform as a promoter. The affidavit said: "That interference by the answering respondent in the powers vested upon the State under RERA would be an overreach by the answering respondent and defeat the objective of the Act thus making the Petition infructuous." The Centre said it has discharged the duty by formulation of the Act and delegating the rule making upon the states for better implementation of the provisions of RERA. "Currently, all the States & UTs have notified rules under RERA except Nagaland with which the answering respondent is in discussion", it added. The central government said it shared the draft 'agreement for sale' in 2016, after the enactment of RERA, with all the states and union territories. The Centre submitted that section 13 of RERA is particularly dealing with 'agreement for sale' and restricts the promoter from not accepting any deposit or advance from the allottee without first entering into an agreement for sale. The top court said: "Government has the power to make a model builder-buyer agreement under RERA". On November 8, the Supreme Court said a model builder-buyer agreement is an important matter in public interest, which is required in the real estate sector, and sought Centre's reply in the matter.