Back
: Enough for RERA Complaint, Dismisses Appeal
A Division Bench of the has dismissed an appeal by and Properties LLP, holding that the absence of a does not automatically exclude a complaint from the of the .
Justices Parth Prateem Sahu and Sachin Singh Rajput ruled that the term “” under is wide enough to encompass claims based on oral agreements for the sale of real estate.
Background: An and a Disputed Shop
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by before the . The complainant alleged that it had entered into an with for the purchase of Shop No. J-03, measuring 1,280 sq. ft., in the “Rama World” project at High Street, Swarn Bhoomi, Raipur, for a total consideration of ₹75 lakh.
According to the complaint, paid a total of ₹25 lakh in three instalments: ₹5 lakh on , ₹10 lakh on , and another ₹10 lakh on . The payments were made through cheques, and the complainant asserted that the amounts were reflected in its balance sheet. Despite these payments, possession was never handed over, and no sale deed was executed. After about three years, the complainant alleged that returned the ₹25 lakh instead of completing the sale.
denied any or allotment of the shop. It contended that the complainant had not approached RERA with and that no written document existed to support the claim.
RERA’s Initial Dismissal and the Appellate Tribunal’s Reversal
RERA dismissed the complaint on , holding that there was no and no clear evidence that the payment was made towards the real estate transaction. It concluded that the matter did not fall within RERA’s .
appealed to the , which on set aside RERA’s order. REAT found that an could be considered under the RERA framework and that the complainant was an “” entitled to seek relief. The tribunal the case back to RERA for fresh .
Arguments Before the High Court
challenged REAT’s order before the High Court under . Counsel for the appellant argued that merely depositing money does not make a person an “” under , which requires an application, its acceptance, and a consequential allotment. They contended that REAT erred in presuming an based on photocopies of a and that the matter involved unsuitable for .
In response, counsel for supported REAT’s order, emphasising that the payments were reflected in the balance sheet and that the appellant had failed to perform its obligations under the oral understanding. They argued that a is not a prerequisite for invoking the Act’s provisions.
High Court’s Legal Analysis: Wide Ambit of “”
The High Court examined the relevant provisions, particularly Section 31 (filing of complaints) and Section 35 (powers of authority to conduct inquiries) of the , along with .
The court observed that RERA had erroneously focused solely on the definition of “” under Section 2(d) while ignoring Section 31, which allows any “” to file a complaint. The bench noted that the pleadings clearly disclosed a transaction involving the deposit of money in connection with the alleged allotment and sale of the shop.
“From the aforementioned facts of the case it is apparent that there was transaction between the parties of depositing of amount with respect to allotment and sale of real estate (shop) as mentioned in the complaint,” the court recorded.
The High Court further found that RERA had not discussed whether an inquiry under had been initiated. It held that RERA ought to have followed the prescribed procedure for ordering production of documents or seeking evidence before deciding the complaint.
Key Observations
The bench made a crucial observation on the breadth of the term “”:
“The word ‘’ used under Section 31 of the Act, 2016 and under Rule 35 of the Rules, 2017, who can file complaint is very wide, therefore, only because no written document to show the allotment of any real estate or any agreement between the parties in itself will not oust the of the RERA.”
The court also noted that RERA’s order was self-contradictory, as it recorded on one hand that it was not proved that any payment was made, while simultaneously acknowledging that the complainant had accepted that the amount was returned.
The Verdict and Its Implications
Dismissing ’ appeal, the High Court found no involved. It directed RERA to decide the complaint afresh in accordance with the directives issued by REAT in paragraph 55 of its impugned order, without being influenced by other observations made by the tribunal.
The ruling reinforces that the RERA framework is designed to protect the interests of allottees and that , such as the absence of a , should not be used to defeat legitimate claims. By affirming that an can be the basis of a complaint under Section 31, the High Court has broadened the scope of who can approach RERA, potentially opening the door for many to be scrutinised by the regulator.
